Triumphs in the Age of Civil War: The Late Republic and the Adaptability of Triumphal Tradition 147426784X, 9781474267847

Citation preview

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Also Available from Bloomsbury Rome in the Late Republic, 2nd edition, Mary Beard and Michael Crawford The Roman Empire, 2nd edition, Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller In Search of the Romans, James Renshaw Greek Warfare, Hans Van Wees Lost Battles, Philip Sabin

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War The Late Republic and the Adaptability of Triumphal Tradition Carsten Hjort Lange

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 Paperback edition first published 2018 © Carsten Hjort Lange, 2016 Carsten Hjort Lange has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: PB: ePDF: ePub:

978-1-47426-784-7 978-1-35006-057-9 978-1-47426-786-1 978-1-47426-785-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lange, Carsten Hjort, author. Title: Triumphs in the age of civil war : the late Republic and the adaptability of triumphal tradition / Carsten Hjort Lange. Description: London ; New York : Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016018295 (print) | LCCN 2016030905 (ebook) | ISBN 9781474267847 (hardback) | ISBN 9781474267861 (PDF) | ISBN 9781474267854 (ePub) | ISBN 9781474267861 (epdf) | ISBN 9781474267854 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Rome–History, Military–265-30 B.C. | Civil war–Rome–History. | Triumph–History. | Rome–Military antiquities. | Processions–Rome–History. | Political customs and rites–Rome–History. | Political culture–Rome–History. | War and society–Rome–History. | Rome–Politics and government–265-30 B.C. | BISAC: HISTORY / Ancient / Rome. | HISTORY / Ancient / General. | HISTORY / Military / General. Classification: LCC DG254.2 .L36 2016 (print) | LCC DG254.2 (ebook) | DDC 394/.4–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016018295 Cover design: Eleanor Rose Cover image © Vince Cavataio/Getty Images Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

For Lone

Contents Acknowledgements List of Figures Introduction

xii

1

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land: Approaches to Civil War and Triumph Modern approaches to civil war Approaching triumph: beyond the spectacle

13

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount Triumph and Naval Triumph The ovation – or, not quite a triumph Triumphus in Monte Albano Naval triumph

31

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping The evidence: inventing triumphs (?) Nachtrag, Fasti Capitolini The Alban Mount triumph

49

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change Marius and a transformation of the triumph Triumph in absentia Competition and conventions: triumph-hunting Civil war 44–43 BCE Conclusions

71

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic: Constructing the Enemy The conventional prohibition on civil war triumphs Sulla and the war against Mithridates Hostes declarations Pompeius’ African and Spanish triumphs Caesar and the enemies of Rome Mutina: fighting for the res publica Brundisium: peace restored Sicily: a war against slaves and pirates

95

2

3

4

5

ix 1

20 27

33 39 43

52 61 63

73 77 79 83 90

95 101 103 105 107 111 114 115

Contents

viii

Actium: the end of the Late Republican civil war Conclusions 6

7



Augustus, Triumph, Civil War, and the Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration Actium as a civil war Fasti municipales The Victory Monument at Nicopolis/Actium Triumphal Topography: Augustus’ Triumphal and Triumph-like Returns The triumviral assignment, Perusia 40 A peaceful ceremonial entry, Brundisium 40 Entering on horseback, Mylae/Naulochus 36 The triple triumph of 29 A practical problem: victorious generals returning from the East The Augustan programme of pacification and the princeps’ return The Porta Capena: returning from the East in 19 Peace is named after Augustus: returning to Rome in 13 Advances into central Europe 12–8 The last departure: the triumphal funeral of 14 CE Conclusions

121 123

125 129 133 141

155 156 157 158 159 162 164 165 167 168 169 170

Epilogue: Civil War and Triumph. The Casa di Pilatos Relief

171

Appendix: Triumphal Arches Vespasian and Titus Septimius Severus Constantine Notes Bibliography Index

195 198 199 201 207 297 329

Acknowledgements This project began its life under the auspices of the Carlsberg Foundation. Together with the conference entitled The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle (held at The Danish Institute, Rome, in January 2013), and its proceedings (co-edited with Frederik Juliaan Vervaet), it represents the culmination of my Postdoctoral Research Fellowship at the Accademia di Danimarca. Final corrections were undertaken with the support of a Mobilex research fellowship, awarded by The Danish Council for Independent Research (DFF), Humanities (FKK), in cooperation with the Marie Curie Program. In 2014 I took up a post at the Department of Culture and Global Studies, History, Aalborg University, who supported the final stages of completion. I am immensely grateful for the funding and support I have received from these institutions. Numerous academics and friends have lent their assistance and expertise during the process of writing this book. To all who helped me I offer my gratitude. Nobody named, nobody forgotten. I owe debt (in no particular order) to all the participants from the triumph conference in Rome; the shifting borsisti at the Accademia di Danimarca, who often were forced to listen to my ramblings upon civil war and triumph more often, I assume, than they had ever hoped or feared; and the staff of the Accademia di Danimarca, not the least Pia Hansen, Janne N. Penazzi, Bente Rasmussen and Adelaide Zocchi. I would also like to thank Katarzyna Balbuza, Henriette van der Blom, Jesper Carlsen, Christopher J. Dart, Jane Fejfer, Tommaso Gnoli, Nikos D. Karabelas, Jens Krasilnikoff, Trevor S. Luke, Christoph Lundgreen, Duncan MacRae, David Potter, John Richardson, Ben Russell, Matthew Dal Santo, Thomas Schäfer, Søren Schmidt, Christopher Smith, Martin Spannagel, Saskia Stevens, Kathryn Welch, Konstantinos Zachos and the anonymous referees appointed by the publishers. Furthermore, my editor Alice Wright, as well as Anna MacDiarmid, Lucy Carroll and the team from Bloomsbury Academic. They have done a great job. Whatever faults that remain are of course my own. Earlier versions of parts of this book have appeared as: ‘The Triumph outside the City: Voices of Protest in the Middle Republic’, in the co-edited proceedings mentioned above (Chapters 2 and 3); ‘The Late Republican Triumph. Continuity and Change’, in Der römische Triumph in Prinzipat und Spätantike (Chapter 4);

x

Acknowledgements

‘Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic’, in Papers of the British School at Rome (Chapter 5); ‘Augustus’ Triumphal and Triumph–like Returns’, in The Moving City, published with Bloomsbury Academic (Chapter 7); ‘Constantine’s Civil War Triumph of AD 312 and the Adaptability of Triumphal Tradition’, in Analecta Romana Instituti Danici (the Appendix). I would like to thank the participants and not least the conference organizers and editors: Fabian Goldbeck and Johannes Wienand, Ida Östenberg, Simon Malmberg and Jonas Bjørnebye. An earlier version of Chapter 6 was presented at Ancient Literary and Visual Representations of the Roman Civil Wars of the 40s and 30s BCE (The American Philological Association), in October 2012, in Margherita di Savoia. I would like to thank Richard Westall for the kind invitation and also the participants at this outstanding conference. The epilogue on the Casa di Pilatos Relief has improved substantially through extensive discussions with my former doctoral supervisor, John Rich. He believes that the processional chariot is the quadriga from the Forum Augustum (Augustan in date), whereas I have argued that it is a processional wagon of the Deified Augustus and a symbolically reversed triumph. He is currently preparing to publish his views. I am also greatly indebted to Matteo Cadario, who read the epilogue on more than one occasion and with whom I have discussed the relief numerous times. A version of the epilogue was presented at the University of Southern Denmark in February 2014, courtesy Jesper M. Madsen, at the University of Aarhus in March 2014, courtesy Birte Poulsen, and at the University of Edinburgh in February 2015, as part of the Northern Scholars Scheme, courtesy Timothy D. Barnes and Ulrike Roth. I would like to thank the audiences for useful comments and suggestions. Special thanks must also go to some great colleagues and friends: Ida Östenberg, with whom it is always a great pleasure to disagree; Wolfgang Havener, who, together with Ida, share my interest for civil war and triumph; John Rich, helpful and critical as ever; thanks to Frederik Vervaet for the conference volume and sharing views, thoughts and writings on the Late Republic; Jesper M. Madsen, alias Lucullus, my old friend, colleague and now Dio Cassius conference co-editor; Troels M. Kristensen, for helping me to focus my views on something as fascinating as severed heads; Josiah Osgood, with whom I share a passion for the impact of civil war on Roman society; Matteo Cadario for reading lengthy portions of the manuscript and sharing his great archaeological knowledge; Richard Westall, who has read and commented on much of the manuscript; Johannes Wienand, who also read and commented on parts of the manuscript; Ian Macgregor Morris, who again helped with some

Acknowledgements

xi

important language revisions. Their critical insight has been a great help and their friendship is greatly valued. Thanks also to CEPS, Cultural Encounters in Pre-Modern Societies, AAU; especially to Torben Kjersgaard Nielsen, and to Bo Poulsen and Johan Heinsen, who I am happy to say both share my maritime leanings. Thanks also to the rest of the department. The greatest thanks go to my family, who have witnessed me time and again leaving Denmark for foreign shores. This book I dedicate to the most amazing person, my life companion Lone Iversen, for all her love, help and enthusiasm. She also read the entire manuscript, saving me from many an error. I am fortunate indeed that she shares my great passion for old stuff.

List of Figures Map of ancient Rome, showing Rome’s gates as mentioned in the text. There is still no agreement as to exactly where the Porta Carmentalis in particular was, or the route of the wall in the Forum Boarium area (altered, from: Stevens, S.L.M. (forthcoming 2016), City Boundaries and Urban Development in Roman Italy (4th century BC–AD 271), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, courtesy Saskia Stevens). 6.1: Th  e Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis. Photo: author. 6.2: The Fasti Amiternini (from Degrassi 1947: 170). 6.3: The Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis. Photo: Matteo Cadario. 6.4: The Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis, with part of the monumental inscription. Photo: author. 6.5: The Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis, with part of the monumental inscription: in hac regione. Photo: author. 6.6: Triumphal quadriga, from the monumental altar of the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis (from: Zachos, K.L. (2008), Nicopolis. Revealing the City of Augustus’ Victory, Athens: Scientific Committee of Nicopolis, 69), courtesy Konstantinos L. Zachos. E1: The Casa di Pilatos Relief, Actium battle scene, courtesy Thomas Schäfer. E2: The Casa di Pilatos Relief, triumph scene, courtesy Thomas Schäfer. E3: Triumphal quadriga, from the monumental altar of the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis (from: Zachos, K.L. (2008), Nicopolis. Revealing the City of Augustus’ Victory, Athens: Scientific Committee of Nicopolis, 69), courtesy Konstantinos L. Zachos. E4: Senatorial followers, from the monumental altar of the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis (from: Zachos, K.L. (2008), Nicopolis. Revealing the City of Augustus’ Victory, Athens: Scientific Committee of Nicopolis, 69), courtesy Konstantinos L. Zachos.

126 135 141 143 149

150 171 174

175

176

List of Figures

E5: The Casa di Pilatos Relief, triumph scene, Augustus in triumphal chariot, courtesy Thomas Schäfer. E6: The Casa di Pilatos Relief, Actium battle scene, centaur, courtesy Thomas Schäfer. E7: The Casa di Pilatos Relief, Actium battle scene, ship sinking, courtesy Thomas Schäfer. A1: Arch of Constantine. Photo: author. A2: Arch of Constantine, Siege of Verona. Photo: author. A3: Arch of Constantine, Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Photo: author.

xiii

184 188 190 201 203 204

Map of ancient Rome, showing Rome’s gates as mentioned in the text.

Introduction Civil war, domestic political conflict solved by military means, as war in general, is a repetitive and distinct form of human behaviour.1 The manner in which wars are fought change, not the nature of war itself.2 This monograph proposes to reconsider the nature and the character of the phenomenon of civil war during the Late Republic. At the same time it focuses on a key feature of the Roman socio-­political order: the triumph. Not just civil war triumphs, but triumphs during the age of civil war. In the Late Republic the Romans found themselves needing to debate and re-­conceptualize the very idea of civil war, especially in terms of rituals of war, primarily that of the triumph. Augustus used these rituals of war in order to legitimize the civil conflicts after the death of Caesar. He and ‘his image-­makers’ unquestionably sought to play up Victoria (together with peace, mainly due to civil war. See Lange 2009). Yet this practice had deep roots not just in Rome but also in the Hellenistic world. Triumph, however, was a ritual ‘performed’ only by the Romans. During the Later Roman Empire, civil war was recurrent and the Roman rituals of war were once again used as tools of legitimization.3 The Late Republic therefore foreshadows the Augustan Principate and later imperial developments. It is thus also a book about the transition from Republic to Empire. This monograph proposes that it is vital for us to remember the Romans’ need to award honours within a known framework, a development that became noticeable long before Augustus. Many of the wars of the Late Republican period were largely civil conflicts. There was, therefore, a tension between the traditional expectation that triumphs should be celebrated for victories over foreign enemies and the need of the great commanders to give full expression to their prestige, charisma, and to legitimize their power (‘triumphal rulership’ (McCormick 1986)). It is one thing to win battles and conduct successful campaigns; but to do so in a geographical, social, political and cultural context that is problematic in the extreme, makes this endeavour much more difficult.4 In many ways the Late Republic is best described as a period of ‘system failure’, although it must be

2

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

stressed that the different factions fought for supremacy of the state, not to dissolve it. It was a period in which factions formed and re-­formed, not always causing full-­blown civil war, but certainly creating political unrest. Thus, the subject of this monograph is equally that of triumph and that of civil war, a relation which may appear at odds with the convention (known from several statements in the ancient evidence. See especially Chapter 5) that no triumph could be won for a civil war. Most of the rules and conventions relating to triumphs thus appear to have been articulated as the development of Roman warfare brought new issues to the Senate’s attention, including civil war as a distinct way of war. This book will examine these tensions and the ways in which they were resolved. The traditional war-­ritual of the triumph and the topic of civil war have both received increasing interest in scholarship. There has in fact been a recent outpouring of research on the Roman triumph, and much of this attention has focused on the rules and conventions determining the awarding of triumphs, as well as the spectacle in Rome itself.5 But very few of these studies take civil war and civil war victories into account; and most even dismiss any possible connection between the two. Indeed, attempts to define the relationship between civil war and triumph have been hampered by comments in the ancient evidence that suggest, as mentioned, that the celebration of a triumph for victory in a civil war was contrary to traditional practices. Nevertheless, as this study will argue, a commander could in practice expect to triumph after a civil war victory if it could also be represented as being over a foreign enemy, even if the foreign nature of the enemy was dubious at best and the principal opponent was clearly Roman. The civil aspect of the war did not have to be denied, and it was only after a victory in an exclusively civil war that triumphing was understood as being in breach of traditional practices.6 I therefore wish to challenge the convention that no triumph could be won for a civil war victory. Scholarly consensus has declared that if one was nevertheless awarded, this was allegedly only possible by denying the ‘civil’ element of the war. This I believe to be wrong. Civil war was always part of the reckoning, including the triumphal celebrations, and accepted as such. It is certain that not all the changes to the triumphal ritual that occurred during the Late Republic were directly related to civil war (and the period of crisis from 133 onwards). Many of the changes, however, I will propose, were related to the impact of civil strife and civil war, as well as related issues. The dynasts of the period, beginning largely with Marius, changed Rome’s political landscape, Rome itself, as well as its war rituals. Ultimately, the triumph became

Introduction

3

part of the honours system of the Principate, a development that will be traced, and which included substitute-­honours replacing the triumph proper (triumph-­ like celebrations). The focus is accordingly on the enormous impact of civil war on Roman society during the Late Republic. The psychological legacy of the civil war period of the Late Roman Republic was both immense and extreme. The psychological consequences of mass (civil) war was immense in human costs. In Republican times a public triumph was the greatest honour and the grandest spectacle Rome could bestow on a military commander. It was usually rather difficult to be granted a triumph (Suet., Tib. 1.2, on the gens Claudia, with a low figure for triumphs): deinceps procedente tempore duodetriginta consulatus, dictaturas quinque, censuras septem, triumphos sex, duas ovationes adepta est (‘Then as time went on it was honoured with twenty-­eight consulships, five dictatorships, seven censorships, six triumphs, and two ovations’). Perhaps the best description of what has aptly been called ‘triumphal rulership’ is found in the Res Gestae of Augustus, especially Chapter 4: [bis] ovans triumphavi et tri[s egi] curulis triumphos et appella[tus sum v]iciens et semel imperator, [decernente pl]uris triumphos mihi sena[t]u, qu[ibus omnibus su]persedi. l[aurum de f]asc[i]bus deposui in Capi[tolio, votis quae] quoque bello nuncupaveram [sol]utis. ob res a [me aut per legatos] meos auspicis meis terra ma[riqu]e pr[o]spere gestas qui[nquagiens et q]uinquiens decrevit senatus supp[lica]ndum esse dis immortalibus. dies a[utem, pe]r quos ex senatus consulto [s]upplicatum est, fuere DC[CCLXXXX. in triumphis meis] ducti sunt ante currum meum reges aut r[eg]um lib[eri novem. consul f]ueram terdeciens, cum [scribeb]a[m] haec, [et eram se]ptimum et t]ricen[simu]m tribuniciae potestatis. (‘I celebrated two triumphal ovations and three curule triumphs, and I have been hailed twenty-­one times as victorious general, although the Senate voted me more triumphs, from all of which I abstained. I deposited the laurel from my fasces in the Capitoline temple, in fulfilment of the vows which I had taken in each war. On account of affairs successfully accomplished by land and sea by me or through my deputies under my auspices the Senate fifty-­five times decreed that thanksgiving should be offered to the immortal gods. Moreover the days during which thanksgiving had been offered by decree of the Senate have amounted to 890. In my triumphs nine kings or kings’ children have been led in front of my chariot. I had been consul thirteen times at the time of writing, and I was the holder of tribunician power thirty-­seven times’) [trans. Cooley 2009, adapted].

Augustus begins with the triumphs and ovations he celebrated and ends with his magistracies: his consulships and the number of times he held the powers of the

4

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

tribune are mentioned last, almost as an afterthought, as it had to be mentioned somewhere. Wallace-Hadrill (2010: 452) suggests that Roman identity changed during the reign of Augustus; it was no longer expressed through political participation, but through cultural symbols.7 Cultural markers thus became important. This is true to an extent, but at the same time this was also true in Republican times with symbols and rituals enduring. The rituals changed over time, in order to accommodate the changing honour-­system of the Late Republic and the Empire, including, as mentioned, triumphs and triumph-­like processions. We must however remember that triumphs were visibly important long before the Late Republic. In Livy, the African triumph of P. Cornelius Scipio marked the end of the war against Hannibal (his final book on the war). Writing his account during the lifetime of Augustus, Livy offers interesting details (30.45):8 pace terra marique parta, exercitu in naves imposito, in Siciliam Lilybaeum traiecit. inde magna parte militum navibus missa ipse per laetam pace non minus quam victoria Italiam, effusis non urbibus modo ad habendos honores, sed agrestium etiam turba obsidente vias, Romam pervenit triumphoque omnium clarissimo urbem est invectus. argenti tulit in aerarium pondo centum viginti tria milia. militibus ex praeda quadringenos aeris divisit. morte subtractus spectaculo magis hominum quam triumphantis gloriae Syphax est, Tiburi haud ita multo ante mortuus, quo ab Alba traductus fuerat. conspecta tamen mors eius fuit, quia publico funere est elatus— hunc regem in triumpho ductum Polybius, haudquaquam spernendus auctor, tradit— secutus Scipionem triumphantem est pilleo capiti imposito Q. Terentius Culleo, omnique deinde vita, ut dignum erat, libertatis auctorem coluit. Africani cognomen militaris prius favor an popularis aura celebraverit an, sicuti Felicis Sullae Magnique Pompeii patrum memoria, coeptum ab adsentatione familiari sit parum compertum habeo. primus certe hic imperator nomine victae ab se gentis est nobilitatus; exemplo deinde huius nequaquam victoria pares insignes imaginum titulos claraque cognomina familiarum fecerunt. (‘When peace had been secured by land and sea, [Scipio] embarked his army and crossed over to Lilybaeum in Sicily. Then after sending a large part of the army by sea, he himself, making his way through Italy, which was exulting in peace no less than victory, while not cities only poured out to do him honour, but crowds of rural inhabitants also were blocking the roads, reached Rome and rode into the city in the most distinguished of all triumphs. He brought into the treasury one hundred and twenty-­three thousand pounds weight of silver. To his soldiers he distributed four hundred asses apiece out of the booty. The death of Syphax withdrew him rather from the eyes of spectators than from the glory of the triumphing general. He had died not long before at Tibur, to which he had

Introduction

5

been transferred from Alba. Nevertheless his death attracted attention because he was given a state funeral. Polybius, an authority by no means to be despised, relates that this king was led in triumphal procession. Following Scipio as he triumphed was Q. Terentius Culleo wearing the liberty cap; and for all the rest of his life, as was fitting, he honoured in Scipio the giver of his freedom. As for the surname Africanus, whether his popularity among the soldiers, or fickle favour of the people first gave it currency I am unable to state, or whether it began with the flattery of his intimates, as did the surname Felix for Sulla and Magnus for Pompeius in the time of our fathers. What is certain is that he was the first general to be distinguished by the name of a nation conquered by him. Later, following his example men who were by no means his equals in their victories gained outstanding inscriptions for their masks, and glorious surnames for their families’).

Livy informs us that the booty was taken to the state treasury, substantiated by Cicero, who adds that Servilius Vatia Isauricus submitted a catalogue of booty to the treasury. We can cautiously accept that the figures given derive from actual lists.9 Furthermore, Scipio was given the cognomen Africanus in relation to the victory.10 There can be little doubt that many in Rome and Italy were pleased that the war against Hannibal was finally drawn to a close. Scipio, according to Livy, travelled in triumph-­like procession through Italy, before finally entering Rome in triumph (the soldiers may have travelled all the way to Rome by sea, to the Navalia. See Chapter 7). Perhaps more surprisingly, Livy uses the famous Augustan phrase of pace parta terra marique, to which I shall return more than once. In 36, after the war against Sextus Pompeius, Octavian (Young Caesar) was given an honorific column on the Forum Romanum, with the inscription: ‘Peace, long disrupted by civil discord, he restored on land and sea’ (App., B Civ. 5.130: τὴν εἰρήνην ἐστασιασμένην ἐκ πολλοῦ συνέστησε κατά τε γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν). After Actium the same phrase appears on the inscription of the Victory Monument at Nicopolis.11 This foreshadows the closing of the Temple of Janus in 29.12 Triumph is at the centre of attention, symbolizing the end of the war against Hannibal. I will suggest that this phrase derives from the laurelled letter sent to the Senate by Octavian after his victory. The case of Scipio, as taken from Livy, certainly suggests that peace and war, victory and peace, belonged together in (Augustan) Rome. The Scipio triumph was of course unrelated to civil war, as it rightfully should be, even though the phrase was clearly connected to civil war victories and to triumphs in Augustan times, such as Octavian’s ovation of 36 and triumph of 29, granted for a foreign war and slave/pirate war that were also civil wars. The

6

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

phrase used by Livy to describe Scipio suggests that there were tensions between the traditional expectation that triumphs should be celebrated for victories over foreign enemies, and the need of the great commanders to give full expression to their prestige and charisma. The focus in Livy is thus on two turning points of the greatest importance in Roman history: the ending of the war against Hannibal and the ending of the civil war with the victory of Augustus. It was logical to ‘compare them’, as both constituted the gravest possible dangers for Rome. The language was similar, also because the civil war period used a language echoing that used in foreign wars. The ‘sense of an ending’ apparent in the formula of peace after war fits the Augustan age well, connected as it is to the ending of the civil wars. Res Gestae 34.1 suggests that the civil wars had not just ended, but were in fact extinct. Having said that, triumph and peace did not mean the end of warfare (RG 13 mentions three proposed closings of the Temple of Janus) and closure was not fundamental to triumph, at least not until the Late Republic, where peace and the ‘sense of an ending’ may have become much more relevant during the civil war period.13 To briefly summarize, during the Late Republic civil war became more common, and the Romans therefore could not avoid incorporating this form of conflict into the traditionally competitive political life of the Republic. As a result, civil war also became connected to the most central rituals of war, that of the triumph. For a ‘typical’ triumph, a general’s quest for a triumph began on the battlefield itself, where the army acclaimed a victorious commander imperator. He then sent a despatch to the Senate, adorned with laurel, in which he reported the victory and requested the decreeing of a supplicatio, a ceremony in which all the temples were open and the people gave thanks and made offerings. It created a presumption in favour of the subsequent grant of a triumph. When the commander returned to Rome seeking a triumph, a Senate meeting was held outside the pomerium to hear his report and decide upon his request. The Senate had authority to grant and refuse triumphs, stressing the notion that such an honour was granted by one’s peers. The triumphal procession would follow: the procession advanced from the Circus Flaminius and crossed the pomerium at the Triumphal Gate. All triumphs later culminated in the approach, by the Sacred Way, to the Forum Romanum, before climbing the Capitoline.14 The last part of the journey was more exclusive: the main procession would have ended on the Forum, as the captive enemies were taken to the Tullianum, on occasion, for execution.15 Perhaps during the Actian triumph Adiatorix from Pontus (Strabo, Geo. 12.3.35) and Alexander of Emesa (Dio Cass. 51.2.2) were executed.16 They

Introduction

7

were far too unimportant however to be the main enemy at the triumph and are not mentioned as such in our evidence, but the spectacle apparently demanded blood to be spilt (the triple triumph in 29 was altogether rather un-­bloody, as the main enemy Antonius and Cleopatra were obviously missing). The victory, the laurelled letter, the Senate meeting as well as the actual procession all relate to the question of justification, and also to mobilize opinion.17 In a Roman context the causes of war were important, and especially so on the case of the Senate’s decision to award a triumph. The means of communicating the victory were twofold: (1) convince the Senate through the laurelled letter and the meeting with the Senate (as part of the Roman decision-­ making process), (2) convince the people, in this case through the triumphal procession. Later monuments in Rome and on the battlefield allowed the victor to present his own version of his glorious victory. The main opponent and/or recipient in such ‘wars of propaganda’ were less often the enemy, but rather fellow Romans. The question as to whether a war was just (iustum bellum) had no objective judge, and was mainly and often even exclusively a political question. If a triumph was granted the victor could claim ‘legitimate authority’.18 Should we accept this premise, then we must also accept that a triumph is about what happened before the war, during the war itself, as well as everything post bellum. No phase should be ignored. This is not only about how the ancients viewed the concept of ‘just war’, but how we, today, approach the past, in the case of the Roman triumph, a ritual that was part of warfare, whether foreign or civil. Usually the magistrates took part in the procession, in front of the general, together with spoils on wagons or stretchers (fercula), paintings and models of conquered cities, golden crowns to the victor, animals for sacrifice, trumpeters, flutists and dancers, and the captive enemies in chains. The victorious commander in his chariot was then followed by his soldiers. Apart from the prisoners taken for execution, the rest of the procession carried on to the Capitoline (how there was room for all of this and what happened next, after it all ended, is a good question). After sacrifices, offerings and feasts, the triumphator was accompanied home by musical escort. This is not, however, a study on the triumphal procession. Rather, this is a study of perceptions of civil war during the Late Republic and the ways in which the triumph increasingly came to be associated with these civil wars. The opening two chapters are introductory, and set out to define the two main subjects of this study, civil war and triumph, and how best to approach them. Chapter 1 proposes that modern theoretical models provide useful tools to reconsider the nature and the character of the phenomenon of ancient civil war, as well as how to

8

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

approach and define civil war and triumph. These modern approaches are only raised as part of the first chapter, and mainly serve to reflect on the issue of civil war and how we as scholars approach and perceive it. Chapter 2 introduces the triumph proper and special triumphs (ovation, if that can be considered a special triumph, naval triumph, and the Alban Mount triumph), and outlines the distinctive features of each. Chapter 3 focuses on the ancient evidence, first of all the Fasti Triumphales and triumphal housekeeping, seeking to answer questions regarding the reliability of triumphal evidence and falsi triumphi. It will focus on the Alban Mount triumph as a case study, which supports the conclusion that the Fasti Triumphales should not be seen as an exclusively archival document, but a piece of historico-­antiquarian reconstruction, in which its compilers may have felt entitled to include some further details that seemed appropriate. Furthermore, it will suggest that the unfounded connection between the Parthian Settlement of 20 and the idea that peace resulted in the end of triumphs is a distraction: the final inscribed triumph on the Fasti Triumphales is that of Cornelius Balbus in 19, although this was not the last triumph. The chapter provides a new reading of our evidence, especially the Fasti Triumphales. The Alban Mount triumph is a key part of this study, in that it sheds new light on our understanding of the Fasti Triumphales in particular and the issue of civil war in general. Having evaluated important triumphal evidence, Chapter 4 will turn to the Late Republican triumph in general, in terms of both continuity and change. Tracing triumphal developments from C. Marius to 29 and the triple triumph of Octavian, the chapter will scrutinize the troubled civil war period and the consequences this period had on the triumphal deployments of the period. It will address certain issues also relevant to later imperial developments, such as turning points in Late Republican triumphal history, the granting of triumphs in absentia, monopolization of the triumph, triumphal competition and civil war. This concerns the political impact of triumph and will also suggest that we need to be careful in accepting the consensus that Augustus was the key turning point in triumphal history during this period. During the Republic, the triumph served as a medium for negotiating status and prestige within a highly competitive aristocratic society, whereas during the Principate it was a medium for negotiating status and prestige under a monarchy. But in fact the monopolization of the triumph had already started at an earlier point. A survey of the triumphs from Marius to Augustus clearly reveals, unsurprisingly, the prominence of the supreme commanders during the period: Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Caesar, and the triumvirs, including their supporters, constitute a substantial part of the period’s triumphal history.

Introduction

9

Chapter  5 constitutes the central chapter of this monograph, and most discussions in one way or another centre around or refer to the conclusions of this chapter. It ‘corrects’ the convention that no triumph could be won for a civil war victory. As mentioned, scholarly consensus has declared that if one was nevertheless awarded, this was allegedly only possible by denying the ‘civil’ element of the war. The hypothesis at the outset of this study is that civil war in part assumed the role formerly performed by foreign wars. Importantly, this process occurred before, and thus did not coincide with, the end of the imperial expansion.19 The chapter will focus on the ancient evidence, examining ancient tensions and the ways in which they were resolved, as civil war created and still creates problems of conceptualizing the victories, which were often marked by a blurring of the boundaries between civil and foreign war. Having said that, with the exception of a few complicating examples – Munda and Mutina, which we cannot ignore – a commander could not expect to triumph after a victory in an exclusively civil war, but only for a civil war that could also be represented as a foreign war; it was by nature of their external character that they qualified for a triumph. Nevertheless, as already mentioned above, the civil aspect of the war did not have to be denied. The Actian and Alexandrian wars were waged ostensibly against the ruler of Egypt, and accordingly merited triumphs. Roman citizens of course fought in these wars on the opposing side, and thus the wars were civil as well as external, and this was something Octavian made no attempt to conceal. Chapter  6 focuses on monuments and their connection to civil war and triumph (cf. appendix on triumphal arches). It also readdresses the connection between the victory monument at Actium and to the triple triumph in Rome, a link I somewhat underplayed in my 2009 monograph. The chapter also highlights the semantic confusions created by civil war: what should such a conflict be called? The question will focus on ‘the missing enemy’. One piece of evidence has been largely ignored in this discussion: the local fasti from municipals around Italy, not the least the Fasti Amiternini, which mentions Actium as a civil war (fought against Antonius). These do, however, contrast with the official ideology of the regime. In order to demonstrate their significance and difference to the official ideology, it will be of crucial importance to consider the fundamentally different contexts of this source. The chapter will also trace certain triumphal phrases, used as part of triumphal justification, emphasizing that we know more about the justifications of Augustus then so far realized. Chapter 7 turns to triumphal topography, including practicalities of triumphal and non-­triumphal entries into Rome, and the interconnection between the

10

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

triumphal and triumph-­like returns of Augustus, clearly initiating the process of defining the adventus of the emperor. The main focus is on the changes during the period, including those under Augustus. Thus the chapter reveals Octavian’s willingness to take traditions to their limits and beyond. This is a key point to recognize in order to make sense of the evidence, much of which is Augustan, and thus to understand the period as a whole. Augustus’ non-­triumphal returns after 29 are probably related to his declining of triumphs. Refusal of a triumph had implications for his return, as he had to enter the city by alternative routes, not the Porta Triumphalis; but this had to take place without relinquishing a ceremonial entry. The Senate reacted to this by bestowing triumphal honours, linked to his triumph-­like returns: they became substitute-­honours replacing the triumph proper. These entries gave Augustus the possibility to locate geographical and ideological markers, in monumental form, at the main entrances of the city, north and south. By analysing Augustus’ returns this chapter will focus on their role within the wider ideological framework of his reign. The epilogue returns to monuments and buildings as well as the close relationship between ancient history and classical archaeology. A ‘newly discovered’ relief has recently been on display in Rome (2013–14) at the exhibition commemorating the bimillennium of Augustus’ death. The relief has now been published in entirety for the first time, courtesy of Thomas Schäfer. In the epilogue I will address this relief in the specific context of the subject of this study, that is, triumph and civil war. The relief, which I believe to be Claudian, reflects central aspects of the life of Augustus: victory, triumph and deification. Fascinatingly, it shows both the civil war victory at Actium, with Romans fighting Romans, and the Actian triumph, thus conspicuously stating what the Augustan period was after all not quite ready to do: Actium was a civil war and the middle triumph of 29 was a conspicuously civil war triumph. We should not, however, see this as a correction of past deeds. This is about semantic confusion, created by Augustus refusing to mention his enemy by name. The relief thus suggests that the deification of Augustus became the logical product of his deeds, primarily the victory at Actium, and at the same time became part of its justification. Therefore, the civil war could be represented as such, because the positive outcome was emphasized (as in the Res Gestae): the ending of the civil war brought peace, at least from civil conflict, to Rome. This all points towards emperor worship and the relief very possibly belonged to a previously unknown temple to the Divine Augustus. This is fascinating new material, which has attracted very little scholarly comment to date. The few published articles, somewhat surprisingly, do not mention civil war and triumph.

Introduction

11

For decades Rome had followed the god of war to victory against foreign foes and extended her hegemony across the Mediterranean. But once the spoils were hers, what was it like when Mars came home? How did Romans respond to the proliferation of civil discord between citizens? And how was this reflected and expressed within the key ritual of political authority, the triumph? Such questions challenge the modern perception of civil conflict as an anomaly or aberration, and force us to consider the extent to which civil war became a ‘normal’ feature of Roman political and social life. Civil war was long part of the Late Republican reality, even within the triumphal celebrations themselves, and it was accepted as such; by the Late Republic commanders could downplay the civil element within a triumph by merely omitting the name of their enemy, yet at the same time loudly claim to have ended the civil war. It may appear provocative to suggest that civil war can become ‘normal’, but the idea does reflect the way civil war permeated the politics and society of the Late Roman Republic.

1

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land: Approaches to Civil War and Triumph

The opening chapters of this book seek to define the principal subjects of this study: civil war and triumph. From the outset we are faced with the specific question as to how best to approach and define these subjects. As this book proposes to examine triumph and civil war jointly during the Late Republic it seems in order to begin in 133 and end with Augustus. The Late Republic according to this view ends with the conclusion of the civil war after the victory of Augustus (RG 34.1). Even the critical Tacitus suggests that after the ending of the triumvirate Augustus conciliated the world by the amenities of peace.1 Florus wrote about the greatness of Rome (meaning mainly wars) probably during the reign of Hadrian, and the second book of his Epitome of Roman History is useful, as it presents us with a list of key events during the Late Republic, many of them civil wars, beginning with the Gracchi and ending with Augustus:2

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV.

de legibus Gracchanis3 seditio Ti. Gracchi4 seditio C. Gracchi5 seditio Apuleiana (Saturninus) seditio Drusiana (Livius Drusus) bellum adversus socios6 bellum servile bellum Spartacum bellum civile Marianum (versus Sulla) bellum Sertorianum7 bellum civile sub Lepido bellum Catilinae8 bellum civile Caesaris et Pompei9 bellum Caesaris Augusti/res sub Caesare Augusto10 bellum Mutinense

14

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

XVI. bellum Perusinum, triumviratus11 XVII. bellum Cassi et Bruti XVIII. bellum cum Sexto Pompeio XIX. bellum Parthicum sub Ventidio XX. bellum Parthicum sub Antonio XXI. bellum cum Antonio et Cleopatra12 XXII. – XXXIII. XXIV. pax Parthorum et concecratio Augusti13 The list opens with the powers of (in)famous tribunes of the people and then moves on to the war of the Socii, slave wars, as well as a progression of civil wars.14 In 1.47.3, Florus describes the period after the golden age, a period from 133 (from bellum Numantium) to Augustus, as:15 posteri centum, quos a Carthaginis, Corinthi Numantiaeque excidiis et Attali regis Asiatica hereditate deduximus in Caesarem et Pompeium secutumque hos, de quo dicemus, Augustum, ut claritate rerum bellicarum magnifici, ita domesticis cladibus miseri et erubescendi. (‘The following hundred years, which we have traced from the destruction of Carthage, Corinth and Numantia and the inheritance of the Asiatic Kingdom of Attalus down to the time of Caesar and Pompeius and of their successor Augustus, with whose history we still have to deal, were as deplorable and shameful owing to internal calamities as they were glorious for the lustre of their military achievements’).

Here the internal struggle and civil war of Rome is contrasted to the military glory of the same period, probably including civil war victories.16 At 2.22-23 Florus returns to the foreign wars (subject of book 1, ending with the Parthian war of Crassus) of Augustus, concluding with peace (2.33.59) and the closing of the Temple of Janus.17 However, although Florus discusses war and peace, the key theme is that of expansion (1.1.1; cf. 1.1.7): peace throughout the world, through Roman expansion. This also appears at Res Gestae 13.18 The postAugustan period is described as one of inertia Caesarum, although this martial inactivity changed with Trajan (1.1.8). Florus thus focuses on both the internal and the external wars of the Late Republic, but rather than consider the period chronologically, he separates the two forms of war. This implies the great impact of civil war – indeed, his account of civil wars is almost twice the length of the foreign war section. A look at the parallel surviving texts of Cicero, Caesar (including Hirtius, completing the Civil War and the Gallic War of Caesar),19 Cornelius Nepos, Sallust, Dionysius of

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

15

Halicarnassus,20 Livy (Per. begins the year 133 in a separate book, 58, focusing on the powers of the tribunate and then moves on to extended periods of civil war),21 Velleius Paterculus,22 Lucan, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, Appian23 and Dio Cassius amongst others give more or less an identical picture of a period of political conflict, civil strife, full-­blown civil war and fear of future civil war. The traditional view of the (Late) Republic (res publica has multiple meanings in Latin: a chronological period, a political system and the Roman state) has been challenged by Flower (2010), who advocates six distinct Republics.24 This seems a thought-­provoking but nonetheless (useful) semantic exercise. Of course the res publica went through different stages, and any modern subdivision is questionable by definition. However, the alternative to a monolithic view of the Republic need not be different distinct Republics. Flower also concludes that the 50s should not be viewed as part of Republican history.25 This is not just a question of Republic versus Republics, but a question of how to approach the Late Republic. As for the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Principate, there are several possibilities: 31 (Actium, Octavian decisively wins the war), 30 (Alexandria), 29 (triple triumph), the relinquishing of his triumviral powers after the accomplishment of the assignment (28–27).26 Claiming that the Republic ended in 49, whatever that might mean, does not solve any of the problems. Similar patterns and causes can be detected in the civil conflicts throughout the period from 133 to Augustus, and a fragmented view does not help. The question arises what exactly the defining feature of this period is, if indeed there is one at all. In Flower’s opinion scholars have so far tended to focus on violence, civil war, optimates versus populares, and the failure to pass reform programmes (Flower 2010: 62):27 Most discussions of ‘Late Republican’ politics have tended to focus on three areas: (1) the violence already alluded to, which intensified into repeated episodes of civil war, (2) party politics construed as the opposition between political groups, especially those designated as optimates and populares, and (3) the repeated failures to pass various reform programs to address pressing issues, notably legislative attempts introduced by tribunes of the plebs before assemblies of the people. While there is no reason to deny that these three features had a vital role to play, too narrow or exclusive a focus on them can tend to create its own repetitive pattern of political inaction characterised as a stalemate between political parties, . . .

Flower addresses what she thinks is a distinct misuse of the word ‘crisis’ (esp. ix– x), disapproving the idea of an eighty-­year crisis. This however entirely ignores

16

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

the fact that almost all the ancient evidence, contemporary and later, focuses on the civil strife/civil war of the period, including political conflict and upheaval. Appian certainly saw it differently: the Emphylia covers the period from the Gracchi to 36, with the ending of the civil war (B Civ. 5.130). The last part of the civil war is then found in books 18–21, The Egyptian Wars I-IV. I am not denying that Flower may be right, to some extent, to see a turning point with Sulla (Flower 2010: 117–34: ‘An Alternative to a Crisis: Sulla’s New Republic’), but surely 133 still seems a more defensible turning point than her proposal of 139 and the first ballot law.28 And was not 88 the real turning point that sets the scene for Sulla’s later actions? The controversy between Marius and Sulla over the Mithridates command resulted in Sulla marching on Rome with his army.29 According to Appian everything changed with Sulla’s sack of Rome (B Civ. 1.60):30 ὧδε μὲν αἱ στάσεις ἐξ ἔριδος καὶ φιλονικίας ἐπὶ φόνους καὶ ἐκ φόνων ἐς πολέμους ἐντελεῖς προέκοπτον, καὶ στρατὸς πολιτῶν ὅδε πρῶτος ἐς τὴν πατρίδα ὡς πολεμίαν ἐσέβαλεν. οὐδ’ ἔληξαν ἀπὸ τοῦδε αἱ στάσεις ἔτι κρινόμεναι στρατοπέδοις, ἀλλ’ ἐσβολαὶ συνεχεῖς ἐς τὴν Ῥώμην ἐγίνοντο καὶ τειχομαχίαι καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα πολέμων ἔργα, οὐδενὸς ἔτι ἐς αἰδῶ τοῖς βιαζομένοις ἐμποδὼν ὄντος, ἢ νόμων ἢ πολιτείας ἢ πατρίδος. (‘In this way the episodes of civil strife escalated from rivalry and contentiousness to murder, and from murder to full-­scale war; and this was the first army composed of Roman citizens to attack their own country as though it were a hostile power. From this time onwards their conflicts continued to be settled by military means and there were frequent attacks on Rome, and every sort of incident of war, because nothing remained, neither law, nor political institutions, nor patriotism, that could induce any sense of shame in the men of violence’) [trans. Carter 1996].

Rome was the symbol of the Empire and its capital; thus she was the main prize. But such a course of action carried very negative connotations, as taking the Capitoline resembled the actions of a foreign enemy. Appian clearly focuses on the building-­up to civil war.31 This debate about the Late Republican crisis is part of a renewal of interest in the events that led to the fall of the Roman Republic and the establishment of the Principate. The revisionist view of the Late Republic as a period of relative normality seems to be growing in popularity.32 I sympathize with such a view, but only inasmuch as I believe that the Romans were forced to accept that civil strife and civil war had become an integrated part of life and thus needed to determine how to perceive and respond.33 This has always been a semantic discussion. In his The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays, Brunt suggested that dynastic

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

17

figures usurped the power of the Senate and that politicians entered ‘shifting combinations, to promote their preferred personal or public ends at a given time’ (Brunt 1988: 38).34 I disagree that this should be seen (only) through the lens of optimates and populares (Brunt 1988: 32–45), but he was certainly right regarding shifting alliances. Brunt also wisely accepts the important role of the army.35 The bond between the commanders and their soldiers, strengthened by campaigning, simply made civil war more probable.36 Using modern approaches may help us understand the development, although we must remember that civil war and triumph are simply too complex to be explained by any single theory or model. So-­called natural states – characterized by a relatively ‘closed’ social order – reduce the problem of endemic violence through the formation of a dominant coalition, in which the members possess social privileges the elite agree to respect. There is an incentive not to fight, as violence will reduce their rents. At the same time there is limited access to the elite (North et al. 2013: 18). In order to move from a Natural State to Open Access Orders – characterized by the emergence of widespread political participation – there are so-­called doorstep conditions that need to be endorsed, including consolidated political control of the military (2013: 26, 151, the Roman Republic and military dynasts: 44–5, 48): ‘When a natural state develops institutions, organizations, and beliefs that allow elites to treat each other impersonally, then that society is on the doorstep’ (148). Societies experiencing civil war by definition lack consolidated control of the military (153). Achieving this is the most difficult of the doorstep conditions (169). The non-­military elite must be capable of disciplining the military force through non-­ military means – one cannot threaten military authority with military force (170). Rome, especially during the Late Republic, does have great problems with dynasts and their control of the army. This equates to a partial collapse of central authority and the rise of extraordinary commands.37 It also means that Rome as a sovereign state did not monopolize violence. But to claim that, as a result of this, there was no Republic, means suggesting that the Republic fell during each period of civil war. Contrary to this Gruen (1974) provocatively claims that the res publica was functioning, whatever that means, until the outbreak of the Caesarian civil war. On this account the res publica met its end by accident.38 One might counter and say that the collapse was never total, but the same can be said for the recovery. Therefore, there might even be good value in looking at the period from 91 to after Alexandria as one civil war (period).39 Morstein-Marx and Rosenstein have now, unsurprisingly, introduced the word ‘transformation’ into the debate (Morstein-Marx and Rosenstein 2010: 629). This debate is very much alive in

18

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

study of the Later Roman Empire. The concept of ‘transformation’ is used by the so-­called Late Antiquity movement.40 I certainly agree that there seems to be good value in accepting the ‘crisis/fall/end/destruction’ of the res publica as a long-­term historical process.41 Whatever the answer is to this at times rather semantic discussion, the Roman state (res publica) fell, even if we cannot agree when, why and how. Returning to Flower, her emphasis on the doubling of the Senate may not be a key feature of the ‘Sullan Republic’ (Flower 2010: esp. 121–2). Nothing suggests that the addition of 300 prominent equestrians did anything to stop the ongoing domination of the pauci potentes in that gremium.42 The key feature of the Sullan settlement was the curtailing of the tribunicia potestas and the tribunician career track.43 That is where Sulla’s settlement was fundamentally different from what had existed before. This also means that this settlement, or Republic for that matter, ended in 71/70, by the doings of none other than Pompeius and Crassus, paradoxically two of Sulla’s leading henchmen.44 The Gabinian Law of 67 and subsequent extraordinary commands meant this post-Sullan Republic stumbled from crisis to crisis, resulting in the collapse of the late 50s and early 40s, the death-­blow to an already ailing edifice.45 Flower suggests that the violence was so marked in the period between 133 and 80 that the res publica and the traditional political culture suffered to a degree that a new Republic was needed (Flower 2010: 80–96).46 However, this is a marked aspect of the entire period from 133 to Augustus. Flower does not deny the existence of violence and crisis after 80, but she still advocates distinct Republics. Furthermore, Sulla’s new Republic did not work as a viable alternative and it collapsed by 60 (not in 71/70, as I propose above), so that the 50s are no longer part of Republican history (149). A further quibble with Flower’s approach is that even if we accept that Sulla’s new Republic was a new departure, not just a restoration, this does not substantially change the point that there are common trends in the crisis before and after Sulla’s new Republic, which are fundamental to our understanding of the period.47 Osgood has admirably shown the enormous impact of civil war in the period after the murder of Caesar, a period not dissimilar to the civil war between Marius and Sulla.48 The psychological legacy of the civil war/strife period of the Late Roman Republic was extreme. As a result the evidence of the period focuses on civil war, as does later evidence, even that from periods of relative normality.49 In 54 Pomptinus triumphed, having it seems spent the years since 59 waiting outside the pomerium. Dio Cassius (39.65) mentions the story and continues: when the triumph finally came there was bloodshed (σφαγή) at the procession,

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

19

due to trouble from tribunes, perhaps related to a question of his imperium.50 The impact of violence, political instability and civil war, make the term Late Republic satisfactory. Sulla’s new regime did in the end not resolve the problem and a new period of civil strife and civil war arose. Furthermore, if we isolate this to the political process, Flower all but ignores other problems that occur during the period as a whole (partly, as mentioned, the problems related to the powers of the tribunes), especially the monopoly of the supreme command and as a result the demise of the joint consular supremacy, which marks out the period from Sulla onwards, but also represents tendencies dating to Marius (see Chapter 4).51 Using violence, and even worse, using soldiers in what is basically a political struggle is thus related to the tribunate, the monopoly of supreme command, as well as the ‘monopoly’ of the consulship.52 This is a defining aspect of the Late Republic, including marches on Rome (Sulla, Caesar and Octavian). Flower thus, or so I believe, underestimates the power of political crisis and the civil war (as well as the impact of foreign wars on domestic policy). She suggests that the use of external warfare and expansion to shape Roman history cannot describe political history (Flower 2010: 15–16, 37), but she ignores the role of civil strife and civil war in this development. This brings us to a crucial and essential point: isolating and studying the civil wars of the Late Republic separately creates an artificial fragmentation and prevents us from viewing the period in its entirety, focusing on the factors that caused its ‘fall’ and the Augustan solution to the problem: mainly, or so I believe, the ending of the civil war. This time the Romans had had enough, at least for a while.53 Flower’s answer, having dismissed the traditional view of the Late Republic, is accordingly to exclude the last part of the outgoing Republic from Republican history altogether. But to omit the period from the 50s down to 28–27 seems extreme and it may even, unintentionally, mark out the proceeding period as one of relative normality.54 The key definition as to whether Rome was still a Republic is in how the Romans defined it themselves. What else would it be and what else would and should we call it? Omitting the last stage of the crisis merely creates a new semantic problem (thus the provocative title of this chapter). Furthermore, there is a tendency to underestimate the wish of the protagonists during this and later periods to justify their actions. Until the victory of Octavian in the civil war the Republic remained the centre of Rome’s world. Certainly in that sense, to omit everything after 50 makes no sense. Even so, a similar approach is found in Hölkeskamp, in a book seeking to summarize the debate concerning the question of normality conducted by Gruen and Meier.55 However, the final period of the crisis, the triumvirate and Octavian’s route to power, is once more overlooked.

20

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

There is thus a clear tendency to remove the last years of the Late Republic from the equation. (The CAH 92 ends with 43, where CAH 102 takes over, due to the historical importance of Augustus; 43 sees the forming of the triumvirate.) These debates ultimately centre on the ways in which we approach the nature and role of civil strife and civil war in Roman society; whether we challenge representations of it as an aberration and argue instead for its relative normativity as a feature of Roman life. The danger is that we create blind-­spots if we omit the final years of the Republic. Of course little could be the same after the Gracchi and especially the 80s BCE, when the res publica broke down only to be revived for a few decades. This violence and strife, as well as civil war, is a defining measure of the outgoing res publica. The connection between civil war and triumph is the product of political upheaval during the Late Republic, although I am not suggesting that foreign wars lost their importance. Civil war becomes a norm and the triumph changes alongside this development, similar to changes brought about by the monopolization of the triumph, as the product of the monopoly of the supreme command (see above). The triumph is thus importantly both connected to the civil war and the civil war victors, beginning with Marius and Sulla and concluding with Augustus, a development that resulted in monarchy (the so-­called restoration of the Republic is surely a red herring).

Modern approaches to civil war Civil war has recently become a popular topic among social and political scientists, economists and historians, prompted by its increased prominence in the contemporary world.56 Recent years have also seen a change in the ways warfare is defined. Actual battles are only part of the equation. The Cold War thus becomes a model for a long period of crisis, although it was not a civil war. Many modern conflicts, including civil wars, are fragmented rather than distinguished by polarized political dynamics.57 As a result the enemy is not always easy to define. Many family ties, social, business and political connections, cut across the divide and the actors always have to respond to numerous audiences. Approaching this as conventional warfare, between opposing enemies, may make us misunderstand the basic logic of civil war, although enemies tend to be portrayed as non-­state actors or, if they are not, as ‘failed states’.58 We are still accustomed to interstate wars between well-­defined nations, even though these wars have all but disappeared. Similarly, we simply cannot isolate warfare to great battles, civil or foreign, but must include periods of build-­up and even

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

21

periods of relative normality. This also means that the word ‘civil war’ can be used to describe a process that covers the period of the Late Republic. There might thus be good reason to use the phrase ‘civil war’ in the singular to describe the Late Republican civil war (civil war proper, 91–29 BCE, with a build-­up phase from 133).59 Another problem is the nature of the conflict itself: many scholars claim that guerrilla warfare is not true warfare, even though throughout history it has been deadlier than conventional warfare.60 In fact, it is not uncommon, even today, to propose that civil war and small wars do not count in the classical definition of warfare. They are ‘military operations other than war’.61 A recent overview of trends within the field of ancient military history is telling.62 Although the book comprises fine studies of directions and developments, civil war is all but ignored (as is triumph, giving only rudimentary space to the subject and relying on Beard 2007). I am not suggesting that the civil war of the Late Republic equals those of Iraq and Afghanistan.63 Rather, I am suggesting that we need to approach the term warfare differently, in a rather more inclusive way. Since the end of the Cold War local and ethnic conflicts (almost exclusively civil wars) have been on the rise, mostly outside Europe and the Western world. Since the Second World War there have been fewer interstate wars.64 There were of course numerous civil wars in the period from 1945 to the end of the Cold War, but as this is a question of how to approach warfare, the great difference is the relative infrequency of interstate wars in the modern world, which has witnessed a shift towards small wars and civil wars. Of course, the civil wars of Rome were different from their modern counterparts, but patterns of history can be revealing. As regards these contemporary conflicts, the historian should of course be conscious of the uniqueness of every historical event, but (civil) war is, as already emphasized in the Introduction, nonetheless a repetitive and distinct form of human behaviour.65 War and civil war has always been with us. That is a premise.66 Modern approaches and theoretical models can undeniably help us pose new questions, but the empirical material will by definition always have to be historical in nature. Realist International Relations Theory may help here, as it suggests that the lack of international law (the primitive character of diplomatic relations) creates a system of ‘self-­help’, with every state seeking to maximize its power, due to the dominance of anarchy (Eckstein 2006: 15: ‘militarized anarchy’) in interstate relations.67 War becomes a normal feature of the life of states, including an inherently expansionist approach, and the primary aim of states (as well as that of warring groups in civil wars) is that of self-­preservation.68 The ‘Balance of

22

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Power’ concept is returning to the forefront of international politics, partly because of contemporary civil wars.69 In a world of civil war, be it ancient or modern, the Realist theory does appear useful. War was normal in Rome, as in the Late Republic, but as war changed and civil war became more common and central, the Romans decided to include this new kind of war into the traditional competitive society of the Republic. As a result, civil war also became part of the most central ritual of war, that of the triumph. The civil wars thus represent an abrogation of the Republican order, yet simultaneously, with imperators and supreme commanders trying to justify their own actions and triumphs, also became a defining feature of that Republican order. Simpson (2012) redefines the traditional paradigm of war (Clausewitz: ‘total’ and ‘limited’ wars): (1) those fought to establish military conditions for a political solution, and (2) those that directly seek political, as opposed to military, outcomes, which lies beyond the scope of the traditional paradigm. The audiences in contemporary conflicts are portrayed as very diverse and the participants are actors in their own right and with their own interests. Even though Simpson largely ignores the term civil war and instead relies on ‘insurgency’, the result remains the same, as insurgency is characteristically an internal war.70 The Roman civil war relied to some extent, although never exclusively, on conventional warfare. Kalyvas defines three main forms of civil war, according to the type of warfare: conventional, irregular and symmetric non-­conventional. These are ideal-­typical and a mix of irregular and conventional is possible (Kalyvas 2005: 90).71 Civil war fought via conventional warfare is often caused by failed military coups or secessions in federal states (Kalyvas 2005: 88: the civil wars in Spain and America). In this form of civil war the fatalities tend to be primarily military rather than civilian, with most civilian fatalities being indirect (Kalyvas 2005: 95: ‘collateral’). The Roman civil war of the first century BCE was thus in part fought as a conventional war, defined as face-­to-face confrontation between regular armies across clear front lines, while some campaigns are better defined as irregular warfare. The shifting alliances/factions, the always pertinent issue of legitimacy, the fact that the different factions had ‘regular’ legions at their disposal, legitimate or quasi-­legitimate, confuse the issues. One reason for the tendency to underestimate violence in civil wars during the Late Republic may be that it often did not take place on the battlefield, and in some conflicts there was no clearly demarked front line. Thus, much of the violence in civil wars was simply unrecorded, as the focus remained on pitched battles. As Osgood suggests (Osgood 2014b: 16), fighting neighbours and opposing warring groups with small armies was an integral part of the period

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

23

and should not be overlooked, while armed gangs were also roaming the countryside. The Late Republican civil war was fought well beyond the conventional battlefields. Kalyvas’ symmetric non-­conventional civil war is fought on both sides between irregular armies following a process of state implosion. This according to some would work for Rome, but it suggests the use of irregular armies on both sides, with no set battles.72 There are in my mind some problems in supporting the idea that Rome imploded/failed as a state in the Late Republic, in any modern sense of the concept, because the different factions fought for supremacy of the state, not in order to dissolve it. However, the ties between the commander and his troops may of course point in this direction, but if so, the result is that this process goes back to the time of Marius. There are thus factors pointing in different directions. Different (failed) military coups certainly played a large part in the crisis of the Republic.73 Rome is in many ways different because the politicians of the era were also the military commanders, as well as senators. With the descent into civil war the government often ended as a faction in this war, with claims of legitimacy from all participants. For example, in Republican Rome, politicians on all sides of the political debate referred to a commonly shared notion that they fought for the res publica. Civil war can thus both confer and deny legitimacy and the term is part of the conflict itself.74 But even though I am not entirely convinced Rome should be characterized as a failed state in the Late Republic, it does in some way resemble just that: factions become the source of security.75 In terms of the paradigm of ‘failed states’, Late Republican Rome certainly lacked a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, or state violence. The authority to impose order was held in the hands of factions. However, as pointed out by Ezrow and Frantz (2013: 21), state failure is not synonymous with violence and strong states can also be involved in civil wars.76 As mentioned above, societies experiencing civil war by definition lack consolidated control of the military. Even so, crisis and civil war apart, Rome in the end survived with the victory of Augustus, although the res publica had changed.77 Once again, the different factions of the civil war fought for supremacy of the state, never in order to dissolve it. Similarly, the Roman state never ceased to work, although periods of civil war were a challenge and a talk of crisis certainly is justified.78 This is in many ways a war of words, but importantly, ‘civil war’ still seems a much better description of the crisis in Rome 133–30 BCE than the ‘failed state’ paradigm. Having said that, the ‘failed state’ paradigm shows that it is possible to accept a crisis without having to accept the idea of Flower (2010, see above) that the Republic ended already in the 50s.

24

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

The inherent problems in the system have been described by Crawford as one of ‘alternative states’ (Crawford 2008). The alternative states, mostly in the provinces, such as Sertorius in Spain in the 70s BCE, Pompeius in the east in the 60s and Caesar in Gaul in the 50s, including alternative career structures and local manpower resources, due to the Roman and Italian settlement overseas (Crawford 2008: 636; those who had served an alternative state often showed little interest returning to the Roman state), are an integrated part of the Late Republic. If anything this shows that Rome’s problems had begun before the 50s. The war between Sertorius and Rome was certainly perceived as a civil war.79 The dynasts of the Late Republic, on this model, behaved like states/alternative states, even negotiating with other states (Crawford 2008: 637). But the effect of this model is to present Rome as a failed state, lacking control over the military and indeed the dynasts. The consilia of these dynasts are like those of rulers of state (Crawford 2008: 637–8). This all seriously weakened the central government in Rome.80 Definitions are of course always highly debatable. Eckstein (1965) suggests that the term internal war is used, as it groups a wider range of internal wars together, such as revolution, civil war, revolt, rebellion, uprising, guerrilla warfare, mutiny, terrorism, coup d’état and so on. In a Roman context, however, the word ‘civil’, as in a war between cives, seems preferable. It better defines the war and the way the war was fought. In Rome there were no revolutionary guerrilla movements seeking to overthrow the government. Undermining activities were used, designed to disrupt the state, but this was ultimately a question of taking over the state, securing the best or right state, re-­establishing the state, or similar. As mentioned, the warring factions all fought for the res publica. To use Simpson’s notion, some of the groups sought political, as opposed to military, outcomes. This is a main reason why I propose that we talk of a prolonged civil war. A conflict focused on military factors alone would have been much briefer. In summary, then, the political process had continuous problems after the Gracchi, but the period of full-­blown civil war began in 91/88 BCE. The years between 133–91 can therefore be seen as a build-­up period to the civil war proper, from 91 to 30. The crisis may be long, and so is the period of full-­blown civil war, some fifty-­eight years, but it was not a period of continuous fighting. Moreover, the other signs of unrest, such as the disruptive tribunes, mob violence, military intervention in the electorate, and allies waging war on Rome, were also part of the civil war period. Violence spread beyond the battlefield and invited acts of counter-­violence, so that the period is not merely a series of discrete wars separated by periods of relative peace.81

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

25

One might of course add the war of the Socii in this equation (91 to 87 BCE): during the Social War between Rome and its former Italian allies the battle of Asculum ended with a Roman victory. As a result of his victory Pompeius Strabo, father of Pompeius Magnus, triumphed de Asculaneis Picentibus (Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 563; this is the only known triumphal celebration during the war). P. Ventidius, consul suffectus in 43 and triumphator in 38 (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569), was led in this triumph.82 There are thus certainly civil war aspects of this war. Interestingly, the Fasti Triumphales emphasizes the enemy tribe, the Picentes, consequently not mentioning any civil context to the conflict, as well as avoiding any reference to Italia, as in the state created by the Socii. As the war had begun in the area, Asculum Picenum was punished severely.83 Appian, however, included an account in the Emphylia (B Civ. 1.34-53).84 This way the war of the Socii, together with the Marius–Sulla civil war paved the way for later events: fighting battles in Italy, whether the enemy was Roman or allies, was no longer unimaginable. This is only a short step away from Italian triumphs and triumphs in civil war.85 Livy gives us an unpretentious and suggestive definition of civil war, concerning two brothers fighting on opposite sides of the civil war in 87 (Per. 79): in quo bello duo fratres, alter ex Pompei exercitu alter ex Cinnae, ignorantes concurrerunt, et cum victor spoliaret occisum, agnito fratre ingenti lamentatione edita, rogo ei extructo, ipse se supra rogum transfodit et eodem igne consumptus est. (‘In this campaign two brothers, one of Pompeius’ army, the other from that of Cinna, come unwittingly to blows; when the winner was stripping his slain rival, he recognised his brother, broke into loud laments, and when he had built his brother’s pyre, he stabbed himself on it and was consumed in the flames with his victim’).

Livy 1.23.1, on the impact of civil war, also presents us with a good definition: fathers and sons killing each other, that is to say Romans killing Romans:86 haec nuntiant domum Albani. et bellum utrimque summa ope parabatur, civili simillimum bello, prope inter parentes natosque, . . . (‘With this answer the Albans returned to their city, and both sides prepared for war with the greatest energy – a civil war, to all intents and purposes, almost as if fathers were arrayed against sons; . . .’).

Thus a civil war is a war fought between cives, between fellow citizens and mostly, although not exclusively, fought within the boundaries of the Roman state. Richardson (2008: 187–8) suggests that ‘From the standpoint of the Roman citizenship and the ius civile, the indigenous inhabitants of the provinciae were

26

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

of the same status as those in the rest of the world: they were non-­citizens, peregrini’. This may suggest a blurring of foreign and civil war at times, but, importantly, Roman citizens fought in the different factions of the civil war, and thus within a single political unity. Rome was a society obsessed with war: the concomitant power to rule as exemplified by military triumphs was central to the political process. Augustus clearly emphasizes this role in the Res Gestae (3.1): bella terra et mari civilia externaque toto in orbe terrarum saepe gessi, victorque omnibus veniam petentibus civibus peperci (‘I have often conducted wars by land and sea, civil and foreign, across the whole world, and as victor I was merciful to all citizens who asked for pardon’), emphasizing triumphal rulership and at the same time accepting that that civil war in part had assumed the role formerly performed by foreign wars (3.2 submits that foreign enemies were also pardoned, when possible).87 Indeed, it seems that during periods of prolonged civil conflict, civil war substituted traditional and conventional war in order to legitimize rulers/ victors. Victories in civil war were useful and unquestionably better than no victories at all. Kolenda emphasizes three ways of winning against insurgencies (counterinsurgents usually win): (1) political victory, (2) military victory, and (3) a negotiated outcome. In counterinsurgency politics is primary. A political victory occurs when the host government develops enough legitimacy and support, or the insurgency undermines itself enough that the population turns against it (Kolenda 2012: xv). This also works in a civil war.88 In a civil war legitimacy is a crucial element. As a result in the Late Republic triumphal rule could be transferred into the world of civil war. In a civil war, and in politics in general, none could afford to lose the active and passive support of the people (Kolenda 2012: xviii). Key here are the ways in which the ancients perceived and responded to civil war, including their different rhetorical strategies. Peace was never the norm in Roman society, where warfare was essential. Res Gestae 13 is revealing:89 [Ianum] Quirin[um, quem cl]aussum ess[e maiores nostri voluer]unt, cum [p]er totum i[mperium po]puli Roma[ni terra marique es]set parta victoriis pax. (‘Our ancestors wanted Janus Quirinus to be closed when peace had been achieved by victories on land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people’).

I would like to suggest that civil war became common as a consequence of the growth of the Empire, and that it took over the role formerly performed by foreign wars. As a result Romans were forced to debate and develop an idea of

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

27

how to conceptualize civil war, in a world that also contained interstate war and the concept of ‘Just War’, which usually excluded civil war.90 Civil warfare, it will be suggested, had become part of the internal function of the Roman state and also a part of Rome’s awareness of normality. Based upon ancient evidence, my conclusion (cf. Lange 2013; see Chapter 5) suggests that a general could expect to triumph after a civil war victory if it could also be represented as a war over a foreign enemy (the civil war aspect of the victory did not have to be denied); only after a victory in an exclusively civil war was this understood of as in breach of traditional practices. This flexibility was the result of the civil war period, visibly a part of Rome’s awareness of normality. It is the triumph to which we must now turn our attention.

Approaching triumph: beyond the spectacle As already mentioned, this book seeks to show that Roman war-­rituals were very much part of the Late Republican crisis and the civil war period. The transformation of the Roman political system in the first century BCE had led to a corresponding transformation in the function and character of the triumph, with triumphal processions of unparalleled grandeur being celebrated by the great dynasts (see Chapter 5). The monopolization of the triumph in my view began with Marius, connected to the monopolization of the supreme command and thus an integrated part of the political and military development of the period.91 There currently is a tendency to focus on procession, spectacle, and on the ideology of the Roman triumph.92 It must be acknowledged that Beard’s book (2007) has served a useful purpose in challenging traditional assumptions. She describes the new orthodoxy (Beard 2007: 333): ‘I have come to read the Roman triumph in a sense that goes far beyond its role as a procession through the streets. Of course it was that. But it was also a cultural idea, a “ritual in ink”, a trope of power, a metaphor of love, a thorn in the side, a world view, a dangerous hyperbole, a marker of time, of change, and continuity’.93 Beard’s manual of deconstruction is, even though in a good sense a highly provocative book, overly sceptical about the possibility of reconstructing customary practices. Moreover, a major problem with her book is the lack of interest in chronology and historical development.94 A typical textbook example of a description/definition of the triumph is found in Steel’s The End of the Roman Republic 146 to 44 BC talking about military achievements:95

28

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War The most glamorous of these was the triumph, a ceremonial procession through Rome which displayed to the citizens both the means by which military victory had been won, in the presence of the army, and the results of that victory, with the piles of booty and hordes of captives, and culminated in religious thanksgiving. The triumph itself was both magnificent and ephemeral; the disposition of booty acquired in foreign campaigns could be given a permanent memorialising role, whether in the form of new buildings or by the public display of plundered works of art.

This is not wrong as such (cf. Polyb. 6.15.8), but it more or less completely ignores everything but the final act, the spectacle in Rome. We must not omit the events and processes which led to a triumph. Steel overlooks the process of how to acquire a triumph, part of the overall ritual: a period before the actual procession, the actual triumph, followed by a contio the day after the show itself (Livy 36.40.14; 45.40.9-41.12). The triumph was a military ritual.96 The pompa triumphalis was the culmination of the process, but how did the general end on the Capitoline in triumphal celebration? The whole ritual may be described as follows: (1) receive a provincia while holding iustum imperium, (2) win a battle/ war, (3) secure peer support for one’s request to be granted a triumph,97 (4) conduct a visually spectacular triumphal parade, followed by (5) the triumph’s commemorative afterlife.98 Since it was the very essence of the ritual publicly to honour and celebrate the victory won on the battlefield, it makes little sense indeed to separate the military victory in the field and the urban spectacle. A general’s quest for a triumph began in the field. The army acclaimed a victorious commander as imperator and the commander then sent a despatch to the Senate, adorned with laurel, in which he reported the victory and requested a supplicatio, a ceremony in which all the temples were open and the whole people gave thanks and made offerings.99 The decreeing of a supplicatio typically predicated the subsequent grant of a triumph. When the commander returned to Rome and sought a triumph, a Senate meeting was held to hear his report and decide on his request.100 As holder of imperium the commander would have taken auspices on the Capitoline before his departure, and there proclaimed a vow for his command and the public welfare (Cic., Verr. 2.5.34). The passing from the civil sphere (domi) to the military (militiae) would then be reversed on his return.101 The procession advanced from the Circus Flaminius and crossed the pomerium at the Triumphal Gate. All triumphs later culminated in the approach, by the Sacred Way, to the Forum Romanum, before climbing the Capitoline. The political part may appropriately be described as ‘The Great Game’.102 The Senate might decline one triumph and award another, inventing

A Voice from No-Man’s-Land

29

conventions in answer to specific problems and developments, including changes in warfare (See now Rich 2014). This does not mean there were no rules, but that they were flexible and changed over time, certainly so in periods of great change like the Late Republic. A triumph could only ever be awarded after military success (but there are of course exceptions to this convention, as we shall later see). As for the criteria for being granted a triumph, were they primarily military or political? Another question related to the willingness to suffer losses, something that is an integrated part of warfare. The Romans were famous for the manpower reserves, but too many casualties often meant that no triumph was awarded. Contemporary victory and defeat are no longer defined in absolute terms in military history.103 In Iraq, the insurgency/civil war that broke out after America’s 2003 military ‘victory’ made that declaration premature, if not empty. Despite technological superiority, America struggled to achieve its war aims and impose peace on its own terms.104 The wars against Mithridates, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, warranted no less than four triumphs between 81 and 61. There are fourteen triumphs de Poenis from the First Punic War.105 Winning was only ever part of the game, and securing peace and stability was an integral part of victory. However, was this ever a factor in the awarding of triumphs? In the case of Acilius Glabrio’s triumph in 190, Flaig writes: ‘das Ritual führte allen vor Augen, dass der Sieg des Triumphators den Krieg nicht beendet hatte’.106 Glabrio did not bring back his army, but importantly, he received a triumph (albeit a dubious one, as Polybius 20.10.11-17 suggests). So while the rules of triumph itself were flexible, importantly, the ritual itself often varied much more than previously thought. Champlin’s (2003: 225) conclusion stands: ‘Custom is the key. Once a triumph was formally decreed by the senate and voted by the people, there were no legal rules to bind the triumphator in how he celebrated his victory. Custom dictated the parade and its components but in the details creative and competitive variety was already the norm under the Republic’. Traditionally military history emphasizes politics, chronology and commanders (the old Breed: Hans Delbrück, Johannes Kromayer, William Tarn, etc.). ‘New Military History’ has emerged with an interest in the social and institutional context of warfare. In place of battles, tactics and weapons, the focus is on social structures, military attitudes, and the relationship between the military and civic society. Military history today thus also considers cultural issues (the ‘Beyond the Battlefield’ approach is popular).107 The Roman triumph was thus a specific Roman war-­ritual that seemingly confirms a Republican culture obsessed with war. This might be described as a militaristic culture, or,

30

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

alternatively, as a ‘victory disease’, an expectation that every new initiative would end in triumph – a term borrowed from the Japanese, used to describe the general feeling after Pearl Harbor.108 Militarism – although not exclusively – provides Rome with victories and subsequently triumphs are awarded. The greatest honour and the grandest spectacle Rome could bestow on a military commander, was to allow him the glory of celebrating a triumph. The ritual thus combines prestige, ambition and function.109 Rome is not necessarily exceptional though. There is a current tendency to see Sparta, Rome and Athens as typical rather than exceptional, even when it comes to military matters.110 All fought civil wars, but importantly, only the Romans ever celebrated triumphs, and triumph-­like celebrations, although victory celebrations were common elsewhere.

2

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount Triumph and Naval Triumph We now must turn to the triumph proper and special triumphs (ovation, naval triumph, and Alban Mount triumph), and consider the distinctive features of each. One of our main sources for the Roman triumph is Livy. It is in the triumphal debates in the Senate, as reported primarily by Livy for the late third and early second centuries, that we hear of the various conventions governing the award of triumphs (Livy 38.50.1-3): plus crimina eo die quam defensio valuisset, ni altercationem in serum perduxissent. dimittitur senatus in ea opinione ut negaturus triumphum fuisse videretur. postero die et cognati amicique Cn. Manlii summis opibus adnisi sunt, et auctoritas seniorum valuit, negantium exemplum proditum memoriae esse, ut imperator, qui devictis perduellibus, confecta provincia exercitum reportasset, sine curru et laurea privatus inhonoratusque urbem iniret. hic pudor malignitatem vicit, triumphumque frequentes decreverunt. (‘The accusations would have had more weight that day than the defence had they not prolonged the debate to a late hour. The senate adjourned, having given the impression that the triumph would be refused. The next day the relatives and friends of Manlius exerted all their efforts and the elder senators also prevailed by their influence, saying that no precedent had been handed down in tradition that a commander who, after decisively defeating the enemy and accomplishing the task assigned to him as his province, had brought home his army, should enter the City without the chariot and laurel, a private citizen and without honour. Respect for this tradition prevailed over ill-­will and a full session voted the triumph’).

Manlius Vulso’s assignment had been for peace, but according to the decem legati he had always tried to break this peace and take Antiochus by treachery. When he asked for a triumph after his Galatian campaign in 187 the legati opposed because of the irregular way the war was begun.1 His example supports the argument that most of the conventions relating to triumphs were articulated

32

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

only as the development of Roman warfare brought new issues to the Senate’s attention. Livy suggests that the Senate’s criteria for awarding a triumph were closely associated to mos maiorum, although the senators in this case had to be reminded (by the friends and family of the patrician Manlius) that this was all very simple: a triumph should be presented if the enemies of the state had been vanquished, and the commander had completed the sphere of duty, settled peace, and had brought the army back. In the end Manlius triumphed.2 Lundgreen has recently argued that the question of triumphal rules or conventions needs to be considered in the wider contexts of Roman political rules and rule conflicts.3 New circumstances certainly prompted developments in the conventions: thus it was only on Marcellus’ return from Syracuse in 211 that the issue first arose as to whether a commander could triumph without bringing back his army (Livy 26.21.2-4). This later changed, as seen from the cases of Furius Purpureo in 200, Minucius Thermus in 195 and Acilius Glabrio in 190 (see below). There seems to be a potential schism between different precedents and the ‘simple convention’ mentioned by Livy. However, the various criteria were still important when granting a triumph.4 Similarly, it was only when Scipio returned from Spain in 206 that the question arose as to whether a triumph could be held following a campaign in which the victorious general had been appointed to the command not as a magistrate.5 This flexibility can also be seen in 51, when M. Caelius Rufus wrote a letter to Cicero, then proconsul in Cilicia, giving a very accurate account of conditions for obtaining a triumph (Cic., Fam. 8.5.1): qua tu cura sis, quod ad pacem provinciae tuae finitimarumque regionum attinet, nescio; ego quidem vehementer animi pendeo. nam si hoc mo re moderari possemus, ut pro viribus copiarum tuarum belli quoque exsisteret magnitudo et quantum gloriae triumphoque opus esset adsequeremur, periculosam et gravem illam dimicationem evitaremus, nihil tam esset optandum. (‘How worried you may be about the prospects of peace in your province and the adjacent areas I don’t know, but for my part I am on tenterhooks. If we could so manage that the size of the war be proportionate to the strength of your forces and we achieve as much as requisite for glory and a Triumph while avoiding the really dangerous and serious clash, it would be the most desirable thing in the world’).

The letter of Caelius Rufus to Cicero and Livy’s report on Manlius emphasize the level of flexibility. However this flexibility should not obscure the fact that there were conventions. Livy mentions these conventions, often regulated by both politics and mos maiorum, but even so, they did exist. The flexibility and change

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

33

over time also becomes apparent when we look at the other forms of triumph.6 According to the Fasti Triumphales, there were three special types of triumphs in addition to the triumph proper (curulis triumphos): ovations, naval triumphs and Alban Mount triumphs. Normally, with the exception of the Alban Mount triumph, they culminated with the approach, by the Sacred Way, to the Forum Romanum and then ascent to the Capitoline and the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

The ovation – or, not quite a triumph7 If a victorious general had a triumph declined, he might still be granted second prize, an ovation.8 By implication the victor would usually request a full triumph.9 Traditionally the ovation, as the triumph, was connected to military success. As a spectacle it was not necessarily more modest than the triumph, but it was different, with the general on horseback or on foot, not in a chariot. The ovation seems to be part of a flexible system and it was often granted as a (political) compromise (see below). The flexibility also meant that the ovation was highly adaptable, which becomes evident, as we shall see, during the last phase of the Late Republic. There is no doubt that the ovation was a lesser honour, as this is mentioned in our evidence.10 If Gellius is to be believed full triumphs required a ‘legitimate enemy’ (5.6.21: iustus hostis). The victors in the wars against slaves and, sometimes, pirates were thus given ovations (5.6.20-22, and see below; see Chapter 5): ovandi ac non triumphandi causa est, cum aut bella non rite indicta neque cum iusto hoste gesta sunt, aut hostium nomen humile et non idoneum est, ut servorum piratarumque, aut, deditione repente facta, ‘inpulverea’, ut dici solet, incruentaque victoria obvenit. cui facilitati aptam esse Veneris frondem crediderunt, quod non Martius, sed quasi Venerius quidam triumphus foret. (‘The occasion for awarding an ovation, and not a triumph, is that wars have not been declared in due form and so have not been waged with a legitimate enemy, or that the adversaries’ reputation is low or unworthy, as in the case of slaves or pirates, or that, because of a quick surrender, a victory was won which was “dustless”, as the saying is, and bloodless. For such an easy victory they believed that the leaves sacred to Venus were appropriate, on the ground that it was a triumph, not of Mars, but of Venus as it were’).

Bastien (2007: 79–80, 295) believes the Fasti Triumphales entry for 180 to be unsound because the consuls were granted triumphs just for deporting

34

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Ligurians.11 However, the naval triumph of Fabius Labeo in 188 is a precedent.12 The ovation of Caesar in 44 as well as those of Antonius and Octavian in 40 did not have an enemy, but were altogether different.13 According to Richardson, the events of 180 were the main reason requirements for receiving a triumph were introduced: ‘the requirement that he should have been involved in serious fighting, later formalized into having slain 5,000 enemy in one battle’.14 Part of his argument is the case of Claudius Pulcher in 143, who triumphed without approval of the Senate and despite opposition of tribunes.15 Claudius had killed 5,000 enemies in a single battle, but lost as many of his own men (Oros. 5.4.7). He was accompanied to the Capitoline by his sister, a Vestal virgin, thus making it a sacrilege for the tribunes to try to impose their veto.16 The ancient evidence however makes it clear that the case of Claudius was an extraordinary occurrence, an exception not a regular practice.17 We cannot be entirely confident that the 5,000 were at the centre of this discussion; the loss of men undoubtedly was. In 2011 I pointed to an overlooked passage in Plutarch, commenting on Actium: ‘there were not more than 5,000 dead, but 300 ships were captured, as Caesar himself wrote’ (Plut., Ant. 68.1: καὶ νεκροὶ μὲν οὐ πλείους ἐγένοντο πεντακισχιλίων, ἑάλωσαν δὲ τριακόσιαι νῆες, ὡς αὐτὸς ἀνέγραψε Καῖσαρ). Plutarch derives his figure from Augustus’ lost autobiography, whereas we may assume that the larger figure mentioned by Orosius (Oros. 6.19.12 has a figure of 12,000 dead) comes from Livy.18 The idea of minimizing losses is clearly visible in Appian, concerning the battle of Pharsalus, quoting Asinius Pollio (B Civ. 2.82):19 ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἄλλης στρατιᾶς οἱ μὲν ἐπαίροντές φασι δισμυρίους ἐπὶ πεντακισχιλίοις, Ἀσίνιος δὲ Πολλίων, ὑπὸ Καίσαρι τῆς μάχης ἐκείνης στρατηγῶν, ἑξακισχιλίους ἀναγράφει νεκροὺς εὑρεθῆναι τῶν Πομπηίου. (‘as for the rest of his [Pompeius’] army, some inflate the casualties and put them at 25,000, but Asinius Pollio, who was one of Caesar’s subordinate officers in the battle, records that 6,000 Pompeian dead were found’) [trans. Carter 1996].

As Augustus would also do later, Pollio is downplaying or limiting the scale of killed in this civil war battle, which did not produce a triumph.20 Actium was partly portrayed as an external war – no enemy was mentioned – and perhaps 5,000 enemy killed was a necessary figure, but it was also a civil war and thus Augustus emphasized that he had killed just enough to earn his Actian triumph. It does seem rather unlikely that the 5,000-clause would normally apply for naval victories, due to practical measures such as retrieving bodies. This example,

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

35

however, was mainly about keeping the figure low. There is more evidence on the matter. Cicero suggests that (Phil. 14.12; cf. Pis. 62): an si quis Hispanorum aut Gallorum aut Thraecum mille aut duo milia occidisset, illum hac consuetudine quae increbruit, imperatorem appellaret senatus: tot legionibus caesis, tanta multitudine hostium interfecta – [dico] ita, inquam, hostium, quamvis hoc isti hostes domestici nolint – clarissimis ducibus supplicationum honorem tribuemus, imperatorium nomen adimemus? (‘Or can it be that if somebody had killed a thousand or two thousand Spaniards or Gauls or Thracians, the Senate would salute him as imperator, following what has now become a normal practice, whereas after the cutting to pieces of so many legions and the slaughter of such a multitude of enemies – of enemies, I repeat, however much these enemies within our gates may dislike that term – shall we accord the honour of public thanksgiving to our illustrious commanders and take away the title of imperator?’).

This refers to the events of the 20 April 43, when the Roman people escorted Cicero from his house to the Capitoline in celebration of the news that Decimus Brutus had been relieved at Mutina. Cicero wants to honour the victors – Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian – even though the enemy – Antonius – is civil. Philippics 14 defends the legitimacy of the imperatorial acclamations of Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian and argues that decreeing supplicationes would imply that Antonius was a hostis and so make the acclamations as imperator legitimate. The excerpt above is a critique of commanders being granted triumphs they never should have received in the first place, due to the fact that too few enemies were killed. As a criticism, not supported by parallel evidence, it does not prove that the convention of 5,000 slain existed; but it does suggest that some form of convention did indeed exist. The question of course arises as to whether we should believe his figure. Perhaps the convention was not always followed, or not at this point in time. What we do know is that Cicero is making a point in order to honour the victors of Mutina. Whatever the answer, the period from 211 to 174 saw changes to Roman victory celebrations, here exemplified through the ovation. As mentioned, when Scipio returned from Spain in 206 the question arose as to whether a triumph could be held by a general who had been appointed to the command as a privatus. A triumph was declined.21 In 200 Cornelius Lentulus received an ovation, even though he was also a non-­consular independent commander (cum imperio, but sine magistratu), sent to Spain to replace Scipio.22 He wanted a triumph, and the Senate admitted he had achieved res triumpho dignas (Livy 31.20.3), but still, he

36

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

only received an ovation, as there was no precedent (Livy 31.20.1-7). Livy here again (cf. 38.50.1-3) emphasizes a central part of the Senate’s decision on triumphs: mos maiorum. The ovation of Claudius Nero in 207 is described by Livy and Valerius Maximus as a triumph, although Livy describes him as following his colleague’s chariot on horseback.23 According to Livy the Senate ordered that the army of Claudius Nero be left in Sicily, whereas Livius Salinator was to bring his troops back (Livy 28.9.1-4). Livy then explains that two triumphs were bestowed, but since they fought the same war with the same goals, they – the two consuls themselves – decided that Livius Salinator should enter in triumph and Nero on horseback. According to Rohde it became usual to enter on horseback after Caesar’s ovation in 44.24 He sees Claudius Nero’s ovation of 207 as an exception.25 Richardson suggests that this might be a modified triumph instead of an ovation (Richardson 1975: 55), but the absence of the troops may point to the ovation, similar to Marcellus’ in 211. Livy emphasizes that even though the battle was fought in Livius Salinator’s province and he had the auspices, Nero was the true hero (28.9.15): uno equo per urbem verum triumphum vehi, Neronemque, etiam si pedes incedat, vel parta eo bello vel spreta eo triumpho gloria memorabilem fore. (‘The truly triumphant progress through the city was on a single horse; and Nero, even if he went on foot, would be worthy of recollection, be it for the glory won in that war, or for his contempt of it in that triumph’).

The ovations of 200, 196, 195 and 185 are all the result of a compromise after disputes.26 Almost all the ovations during this period were given to non-­consular commanders.27 Blasio received an ovation in 196 (Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 552). His imperium may have been extra ordinem.28 Helvius received an ovation in 195, having requested a triumph proper. He had fought in a province that was not his own and not under his own auspices.29 The last of the Spanish ovations was that of Claudius Centho in 174.30 There is thus a turning point in 200 with the ovation being granted for a proconsul who had not held a previous office.31 Later ovations constitute yet another change: in 132 Perperna (Degrassi 1947: 558) celebrated an ovation after his victory over slaves in Sicily. Florus writes in his section on bellum servile (2.7.7-8, the evidence probably from Livy): tandem Perperna imperatore supplicium de eis sumptum est. hic enim victos et apud Hennam novissime obsessos cum fame quasi pestilentia consumpsisset, reliquias latronum compedibus, catenis crucibusque punivit; fuitque de servis ovatione contentus, ne dignitatem triumphi servili inscriptione violaret.

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

37

(‘At last punishment was inflicted upon them under the leadership of Perperna, who, after defeating them and finally besieging them at Enna, reduced them by famine as though it were a plague and requited the surviving marauders with fetters, chains and the cross. He was content with an ovation for his victory over them, so that he might not sully the dignity of a triumph by reference of slaves’).

The dignity of the triumph had to be protected and thus he received and accepted an ovation. Florus’ comment that he was content with an ovation and his overall language (servilis inscriptio) suggests that he had first asked for a triumph and then was convinced to change his mind. The consul Rupilius may also have received an ovation (Degrassi 1947: 558) or, less convincing, a triumph (MRR 1.497-8). He subdued the slave revolt, but we do not possess evidence regarding either type of victory celebration. This implies that the Senate was not ready to accept a slave war as equal to traditional warfare. The slave way of fighting was not always conventional either.32 This set a precedent and later slave wars also provided the victor with an ovation.33 Importantly, the victors did at least receive an ovation. The slave war may thus still be seen as a change in Roman warfare, in as much as it warranted a military honour. Alternatively we could consider these as examples of triumph-­ hunting, with the ovation as a compromise for the eager victor. Terms such as fugitivorum bellum (Val. Max. 4.3.10), bellum adversus fugitivos (Val. Max. 2.7.9) and bellum servile (Oros. 5.6.3; 5.9.4; 5.24.11), or the slave war against Spartacus, bearing his name, do suggest that a slave war was justifiable.34 Appian (B Civ. 1.116) however does highlight Roman arrogance in the conflict with Spartacus; they did not consider this to be real warfare at first, but little more than a pirate raid (meaning no pitched battles). As a result they sent inexperienced officers and quickly conscripted soldiers, not experienced legionaries. This later changed and victory followed. Justification is also evident in the Res Gestae of Augustus (25.1).35 This was a bellum iustum. However, the language of Florus on the bellum servile (2.7-8; cf. 2.6.1 on the war of the Socii) implies the ignominy of fighting slave wars. There is here an approximate parallel to civil war, although slave wars did warrant an ovation whereas a civil war victory in principle did not warrant any honours. After the slave wars another change appeared: Marcellus’ ovation and Alban Mount triumph (lost on the Fasti Triumphales: Degrassi 1947: 551) may be a precedent for Caesar’s ovation in 44 and the joint ovation of Antonius and Octavian in 40, in terms of the point of entry into the city (Porta Capena). The ovations in 40 were given for avoiding civil war; for not fighting a (civil) war that could not warrant a triumph in principle in the first place.36 It is unlikely that the

38

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

awarding of an ovation suggests any equating of an absence of an enemy with fighting an illegitimate enemy. This idea seems to be a later development related to the imperial adventus, and thus connected to non-­triumphal returns: usually magistrates would be accompanied by crowds when departing (profectio) and returning (reditus) to Rome.37 Cicero does indeed emphasize something similar (Phil. 14.12): quanto enim honore, laetitia, gratulatione in hoc templum ingredi debent illi ipsi huius urbis liberatores, cum hesterno die propter eorum res gestas me ovantem et prope triumphantem populus Romanus in Capitolium domo tulerit, domum inde reduxerit! is enim demum est mea quidem sententia iustus triumphus ac verus, cum bene de re publica meritis testimonium a consensu civitatis datur. (‘For with what honour, rejoicing, and congratulation should those liberators of this city enter this temple in person, seeing that yesterday on account of their achievements the Roman people bore me from my house to the Capitol and back to my house in an ovation, almost a triumph. For to my mind, a true, genuine triumph is only when those who have deserved well of the res publica receive the tributes of a united community’).

Cicero mentions iustus triumphus, creating his own rules and conventions for triumphing so that the liberators received the honour they deserved: his ‘ovation’ (none was claimed or granted of course) was almost equal to a triumph and certainly more so than those who did triumph without the consensus of the res publica. Equally interestingly, Cicero wanted an ovation for Octavian after Mutina (Ad Brut. 1.15.9; a triumph was granted to Decimus Brutus). He had not held a magistracy before assuming his imperium, thus referring back to earlier precedents. Octavian declined. To sum up, the ovations of Perperna in 132, Aquilius in 99 and Licinius Crassus in 71 are all won in slave wars,38 signifying a change in Roman warfare or the opponent. The next three ovations however are much more difficult to define within the traditional conventions of the triumph, however flexible, as there was no enemy in either case (44 BCE: Julius Caesar; 40: Octavian and Antonius). These three cases represent honours, but certainly not a lesser honour after a declined triumph. In 36 Octavian then apparently cited the slave wars (and pirates) after his victory over Sextus Pompeius. These will be examined in detail later, including the ovation and Alban Mount triumph of Drusus that never occurred.39 As a postscript, Augustus refers to curulis triumphos and ovans triumphavi in the Res Gestae, suggesting they were different, yet also both triumphs (4.1), even if the ovation was in principle of lesser note. Rüpke (2012: 80; cf. 74) writes: ‘In

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

39

his Res Gestae, Augustus described himself as having triumphed ovans, thus defining an important alternative to the triumph, the ovatio, as a mere variant’. Other scholars have similarly claimed that ovations were not part of Republican triumphal lists.40 Ovations are, however, mentioned on the independent Fasti Barberiniani and thus appear to be part of the Republican tradition (the Augustan list is unlikely the very first inscribed list, but the practice of the public inscriptions may be late).41 I believe the answer is much simpler: RG 4.1 mentions that Augustus triumphed ovans because he wanted ovations to appear as triumphal as possible.

Triumphus in Monte Albano42 In contrast to the other triumphs, the Alban Mount triumph concluded outside Rome, approximately 30 km to the South-East of the city. As a result the Alban Mount triumph involved restrictions: there was no ceremony at the temple to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, no crossing of the pomerium, no relinquishing imperium militiae, no possibility of a tribune’s veto, and no funds provided by the Senate.43 According to the ancient evidence it was celebrated by virtue of the commander’s imperium and authority, and without the official backing of the Roman state.44 Triumphs without senatorial backing are also otherwise attested: in 223 BCE the consuls Flaminius and Furius Philus secured triumphs from the popular assembly instead of the Senate.45 In 294 Postumius Megellus and in 143 Appius Claudius Pulcher triumphed without approval and despite the opposition of tribunes.46 As mentioned above Claudius had killed 5,000 of the enemy in a single battle, but had lost as many of his own men (Oros. 5.4.7). The main difference between an unofficial triumph in Rome and the Alban Mount triumph was thus its location. A parallel to the Alban Mount triumph, in as much as it was also outside Rome, was the triumph Antonius possibly celebrated in 34 over the Armenians in Alexandria.47 The story is dismissed by Dio Cassius (49.40.3-4), probably because it was celebrated in Egypt. However, Plutarch (Ant. 50.4) uses the word ethriambeusen, a standard Greek term for triumph. In a situation where Octavian had defeated Sextus Pompeius (36 BCE: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569) and won a victory in Illyria (33: Degrassi 1947: 570), Antonius perhaps felt he had to respond. He conquered Armenia to counter what he had lost during the Parthian campaign. Antonius is only mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales for the joint

40

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

ovation with Octavian for avoiding civil war (40: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568). There is no entry for the Armenian triumph on the Fasti Triumphales, but this may be politically motivated. Even Lepidus had two triumphs to show.48 It would seem that both triumphs were given to him for avoiding further civil war.49 These cases suggest that, technically, a commander could stage a triumph if he wished, due to his imperium, but in practice he requested permission.50 Mommsen (1887: 134) emphasizes that in order to keep triumph-­hunting within acceptable limits it was customary to request a triumph. The more this question of consensus is emphasized, the clearer it becomes that the Alban Mount triumph was a form of protest against the Senate’s decision to decline a triumph.51 The Roman triumph represented senatorial acknowledgement of military success and justified military campaigns; the Alban Mount triumph was a commander’s insistence that he deserved such acknowledgement. Turning to our ancient evidence, Livy uses the word triumphus (normally, although clearly not exclusively, indicating a full triumph) to describe the Alban Mount triumph, contrary to triumphus ex (/in) monte Albano, unmistakably demarking them as special triumphs (Val. Max. 3.6.5: nam Papirius quidem Maso, cum bene gesta re publica triumphum a senatu non impetravisset, in Albano monte triumphandi (‘When Papirius Maso failed to get a triumph from the Senate for a successful campaign, he triumphed on the Alban Mount’)). Livy emphasizes this idea most clearly in describing the Alban Mount triumph of Minucius Rufus, cos. 197 (33.23). He mentions the Alban Mount triumph and then continues: is triumphus [that triumph]. It is of lesser note; similar to the ovation, but the word ‘triumph’ is used (33.23.8): is triumphus, ut loco et fama rerum gestarum et quod sumptum non erogatum ex aerario omnes sciebant, inhonoratior fuit, ita signis carpentisque et spoliis ferme aequabat. (‘Although that triumph was less prestigious [than the triumph of his consular colleague C. Cornelius Cethegus] on account of its location and what was said about his accomplishments as well as because of the fact that all knew that it had not been financed by the state treasury, nonetheless it nearly equalled the other in terms of standards, wagons, and spoils’).

It is clear that there was no senatorial approval for the Alban Mount triumph, but Livy nevertheless terms it a triumphus, although, as mentioned, of lesser note. This may be due to convenience, or, alternatively, due to a Caesarian and/or Augustan change. I wish here briefly to reconsider the development of the Alban Mount triumph from the third century to the time of Augustus; from voices of

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

41

protest to ceremonies that merited mention on the Fasti Triumphales.52 It did not become, it will be argued, an official triumphal (not mentioned in official triumphal lists, inscribed or otherwise) celebration until the time of Caesar and/ or Augustus: the Alban Mount triumphs of the past were retrospectively introduced into the triumphal list, even though it was celebrated by the virtue of the commander’s imperium, not officially sanctioned and thus did not merit official recognition. In this sense, it was not a formal triumph at all during the Middle Republic, but an act of self-­glorification: a strong and unequivocal public statement indeed, but not officially sanctioned.

The case of Marcellus Claudius Marcellus was sent to Sicily during his third consulship in 214, after which his imperium was prorogued at the outset of 213 and again in 212.53 He captured Syracuse after a prolonged siege and forced a Carthaginian army to retreat to Agrigentum.54 He returned to Rome victorious in 211. At the meeting in the Temple of Bellona he was not awarded a triumph, and thus went to the Alban Mount. He then returned to Rome, crossing the pomerium for the first time, and celebrated an ovation (granted by his peers). Livy writes (26.21.2): ibi cum de rebus ab se gestis disseruisset, questus leniter non suam magis quam militum vicem quod provincia confecta exercitum deportare non licuisset, postulavit ut triumphanti urbem inire liceret. id non impetravit. (‘There [in the Temple of Bellona], after having spoken of his achievements, he protested moderately – not so much on his account as on that of his soldiers – at not having been permitted to bring his army home, and he demanded that he be permitted to enter the city in triumph. The request was denied’) [cf. Plaut., Bacch. 1068–73].

Marcellus argued that he had concluded his mission, thus suggesting that he ought to have been permitted to bring the army back to Rome.55 As mentioned it was probably not until 211 that the issue arose as to whether commanders could celebrate a triumph without bringing their troops home.56 This later changed, as shown by the triumphs of Furius Purpureo in 200, Minucius Thermus in 195 and Acilius Glabrio in 190, who did not bring back their armies, but the criterion resurfaces in 185 with the case of Manlius Acidinus.57 Livy evidently feels that it was curious that a supplication had been decreed, but a triumph for Marcellus was now declined. In the end a compromise was reached: Marcellus was allowed to enter the city in ovation (26.21.4; Degrassi 1947: 551).58

42

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Oddly, the Senate explicitly forbade Marcellus to bring back his army, suggesting senatorial opposition to Marcellus or military necessity.59 Returning briefly to the conception of victory and the idea that victory and defeat are no longer defined in absolute terms in military history: are we, modern scholars working on ancient evidence, once again the real problem here? Perhaps the Romans had very different notions of victory and defeat. This was the first debate over the awarding of a triumph after the outbreak of war with Hannibal. Sicily was one of several theatres of action and there can be little doubt that Syracuse was of enormous strategic importance.60 The question of ending a war had not been an issue in earlier periods, especially during the Samnite and the First Punic Wars, which witnessed a great many triumphs.61 Perhaps the main difference lay in the fact that the Second Punic War had seen few Roman victories up to 211. Indeed, it is notable that no triumph proper was celebrated between 219 and 209. Significantly, Livy seems to suggest that had the army returned from Sicily, Marcellus’ victory would have been granted a triumph, despite not ending the war against Hannibal. The lack of triumphs in the Second Punic War may well have been a deliberate policy, perhaps in reaction to the supreme risks Rome had run. Initially of course there were no victories, but in the later phases of the war there appears to have been decisions to not award triumphs for minor victories which might have earned triumphs in other wars, earlier and later. According to Plutarch, Marcellus was opposed by senators and this was the main reason he did not receive a triumph (Marc. 22 mentions that this would be the third triumph; this must be a mistake, as only two are attested).62 Beck, using Livy, suggests that the Senate attempted to reach a consensus, a distinct possibility when one considers that these events did not hamper Marcellus’ future career. He concludes that the Alban triumph was only possible because the Senate thought Marcellus should be honoured.63 The debate in the Senate, however, was only a question of awarding either a triumph or an ovation, not the Alban Mount triumph; the compromise was the ovation.64 An ovation was hardly what the victor had sought.65 The Senate had declined to recognize its war hero with the only adequate honour for a man of his stature. Marcellus the warrior was in demand and the Senate required his military experience and knowledge of Sicily. He was already recognized as a war hero, as is clearly visible on the Fasti Triumphales, where his victory at Clastidium in 222 is one of the longest entries (Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 550). His opponent, Viridomarus, is mentioned together with the spolia opima, dedicated in the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius during his first triumph.66

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

43

The question remains as to whether Marcellus’ ovation and Alban Mount triumph was a combined event. Unfortunately, the Fasti Triumphales entry for Marcellus is lost. Degrassi assumes that there were two entries for Marcellus under that year (in the Fasti Triumphales), one for the Alban Mount triumph and one for the ovation, and the fact that other Alban Mount triumphs were recorded on the Fasti Triumphales may support this.67 The joint celebrations of Caesar in 44, however, which will be considered in some detail later in this book, suggest that a single entry which included the words ovans ex or in monte Albano may be more likely, although the fact that they happened on successive days may mean that they were recorded in separate entries. Of course, the Alban Mount triumph will not have been recorded as a triumph in 211, as it was unofficial.68 A later example suggests that Marcellus’ protest did carry consequences: Livy (45.38.4) records a speech in favour of a triumph for Aemilius Paullus in 167. The threat is obvious – if the triumph of Paullus is not approved and accepted, he will hold an Alban Mount triumph – and his reputation will not suffer as a result.69 The issue is therefore one of legitimization, and not unrelated to that of reputation. The argument is that the war against Macedonia was concluded, echoing the argument used by Marcellus. Paullus of course triumphed. The Temple of Honos and Virtus may also reflect the debate over Marcellus’ triumph.70 The conflict may well reflect the rivalry between the two men.71 Marcellus’ temple was dedicated in 205 by his son.72 Honos was only possible through military virtus. When Marcellus tried to dedicate the temple in 208, as consul, this was prevented by the pontifices because two deities were not allowed to share a temple cella.73 The same year Marcellus and his fellow consul T. Quinctius Crispinus were killed in an ambush. This followed what is portrayed as their disregard of unfavourable sacrifices.74 Controversy was clearly a defining feature of his political career.

Naval triumph75 C. Duilius M. f. M. n. co(n)s(ul) primus an. CDXCIII navalem de Sicul(eis) et classe Poenica egit k. interkal (‘Gaius Duilius, the son of Marcus, the grandson of Marcus, consul, was the first, in the year 693, to celebrate a naval triumph over the Sicilians and Carthaginian fleet on the first day of the intercalary month’) [Degrassi 1947: 76–7, 548].

44

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

According to the Fasti Triumphales the first naval triumph was awarded in 260 to Cn. Duilius after he won a stunning naval victory off Mylae.76 Since Duilius was still consul at the time of his triumph, he will not have required a grant of imperium to triumph, but he will have sought the Senate’s approval in the usual way. So we must assume that the Senate authorized his processing with his crews (see below), so establishing this new form of triumph. The term triumphus navalis occurs not only regularly in the Fasti Triumphales, but also in historians and other writers, although these sources are all of Augustan date or later.77 However, it cannot be an Augustan invention: the historians, and the compilers of the Fasti, must have found it in earlier sources, perhaps Valerius Antias.78 One piece of evidence, namely Duilius’ elogium, may confirm that the concept dates to the third century and so is contemporary with the celebrations themselves, although this does depend on conjectural supplementation. The elogium from the column of Duilius, providing a detailed account of his military exploits, is in archaic language but the inscription is of imperial date.79 The surviving inscription is made of Luna marble, whereas the original would have been in tufa. Mommsen’s view (CIL) that the text was an imperial pastiche has been influential, but now generally and rightly rejected.80 It is thus safe to conclude that the text is from the third century, although the ‘original’ inscription was re-­ cut/restored under Octavian/Augustus.81 Part of the inscription has been lost, but the context makes it certain that Duilius is the honorand. Even without this text, it is probable that it was a contemporary concept rather than the invention of the later tradition. Octavian did not celebrate a naval triumph and thus had no reason to invent this tradition. It should be noted, however, that he used this tradition to further his own ideology, by reusing some of the honours connected to the naval triumph in the triumphal developments of the period. According to Richardson (1975: 51, 53) the naval triumph is a separate institution, with its own characteristics, but this is disputed by Develin.82 Pittenger stresses that ‘functionally equivalent to a full triumph, more or less, though perhaps a fraction lower in rank as a subsidiary rite’ (Pittenger 2008: 293–4, quotation on 294), whereas Östenberg submits that the triumphus navalis originally was an exceptional honour, introduced for Duilius, because ‘the traditional triumphus . . . seems simply not to have sufficed to emphasize the novelty of the success’, at first on an equal footing with the ordinary triumph, but later seen as being lesser (Östenberg 2009c: 47–57, quotation on p. 49). There is a generally held consensus that the defining characteristics of the naval triumph are unknown.83 Our sources do indeed tell us very little with only two Livian accounts of triumphus navalis: Aimilius Regillus (Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 553),

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

45

commanding in 190/189, won a major naval victory at Myonnessus – it was decisive, as it gave Rome and her allies control of the Aegean, so enabling the crossing of Lucius Scipio’s army into Asia Minor. Regillus did not bring his fleet home, instead handing it over to Labeo, and so he may not have had any troops processing behind him. If so, this must be the first time this happened in a naval triumph.84 Livy (37.58.3-4) focuses on the triumphal procedure in Rome, stressing how Regillus achieved a triumph, and there is no reason to think that the procedure was different to that of a regular triumph. In 167 Cn. Octavius triumphed (Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 556), his main achievement being taking Perseus prisoner.85 He and Anicius held triumphs after Paullus, and in Octavius’ case it was merely for participating in the overall victory against Perseus. It may even have been a reward for the crews who had served since 171 and whom Octavius had brought back, as much as for him. Thus as Livy tells us (45.42.2-3), Octavius processed without captives or spoils (they had all been in Paullus’ three-­day triumph), but just with the crews, who received their donative. According to Östenberg, captured rams were always carried in the triumphal procession and this was what marked out the triumphus navalis as distinctive, although she acknowledges that we do not have direct evidence for rams in the processions for any of the attested naval triumphs (Östenberg 2009c: 49–50). Only Livy (37.58.3-5) tells us about the spoils at the naval triumph of Regulus. The rams present at the triumph of Octavian might suggest that this was standard, but this is highly conjectural (Prop. 2.1.34). The two columnae rostratae of Duilius and Aemilius Paullus, however, suggest that rams were brought back to Rome on occasion and do suggest that prows were carried in some naval triumphs,86 and they might therefore have been distinctive naval spoils. This is, however, speculative. It is also unclear which forces followed the general in a naval triumph: troops, ship crews or both. One Livian notice does in fact attest the ships’ crews processing: 45.42.3 (Octavius, 167 BCE), recording triumphal donatives for the socii navales, with double for the gubernatores and triple for the magistri navium.87 This shows that the crews (citizen and allies, rowers and marines) did process, and this will have been a distinctive feature of the naval triumph.88 Dart and Vervaet (2011) suggest that Augustus may have celebrated a naval triumph in 29 for the Actian victory, but the evidence does not appear to support this conclusion. There was an Augustan revival of the honours of the naval triumph, but without an indication of a special triumph. In 36 and 29 Octavian celebrated an ovation and a regular triumph for naval victories: after the battle at Mylae/Naulochus he celebrated an ovation, an appropriate honour after a slave/

46

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

pirate war.89 Had he so wished, this could have been a triumphus navalis; indeed, the victory was in the same theatre of battle as Duilius’ famous victory. The battle of Actium was again a naval battle, but Octavian chose to celebrate a regular triumph. Octavian’s victories were the first major sea victories since Myonnesus. It is perhaps striking that the Naulochus/Actium celebrations did not revert to the naval triumph tradition entirely,90 but they obviously did to some extent: rostra, columns, and a corona navalis for Agrippa, all draw on the naval triumph tradition.91 Propertius also tells us, as mentioned, that rams were part of the triumphal procession (2.1.34).92 But Octavian apparently did not wish these celebrations to be perceived as just naval triumphs. In comparison, the permanent honours decreed for Duilius were:

(1) The columna rostrata. This was developed from the partial precedent of C. Maenius in 338, but of course Maenius had captured the Antium ships by land assault.93 It was the first Rostra at Rome, adorned with the rams from Antium94. The rostra however might first have been added to the column shaft by Duilius.95 Even though monuments/statues conferred as public honours, rather than set up by the individual, were rare at this date, senatorial control over the giving of honorific portraits is widely attested.96 (2) He was given the right to flautist and torch after banquets, that is, the lifelong right as a private citizen to privileges otherwise enjoyed only by magistrates.97 The colonial charter of Urso (Lex Coloniae Genetivae: Crawford 1996: no. 25, 393–454) prescribes that the town magistrates should have the right and power to have a tibicen, funalia and cerei (a flute player, wax torches and tapers). As Mommsen noted, in this as in other respects, practices at Urso must derive from practices at Rome; and so it follows that Duilius, as a private citizen (Cic., Sen. 44: privatus), held for life a privilege which was otherwise enjoyed only by magistrates during their year of office.98 The question then is whether this privilege was formally conferred on Duilius or that he assumed it on his own initiative. Here the sources differ: the former is suggested by the Forum Augustum elogium and De vir. ill. 38,99 and probably also Livy, Per. 17, which calls it a perpetuus honos (cf. Sil.Ital. 6.667: nocturnus honos); the latter by Cicero Sen. 44 (apparently), Valerius Maximus (following Cicero), and Ammianus Marcellinus.100 That the honour was officially conferred is most convincing. Had Duilius chosen to assume a prerogative of magistrates, it would have been a serious matter. Cicero has used the story to make a point about moderate pleasures in

Triumph, Ovation, Alban Mount and Naval Triumphs

47

old age: he surely does not really mean to imply that Duilius just assumed the privilege: his Cato would not really have been so relaxed had Duilius acted with such arrogance. Valerius Maximus and Ammianus base their accounts on Cicero. So, in addition to his column and statue, we can say that Duilius received the lifelong privilege of being accompanied home from dinners like a magistrate. All of this underlines just how special his achievement was felt to be by the community – and thus that the first naval triumph was regarded as a special and outstanding honour. One might compare Paullus’ right to wear the dress of a triumphator at the circus games, conferred after his Macedonian triumph in 167 (De vir. ill. 56.5). At both Mylae and Actium there had been armies present, although the decisive engagements were fought on sea, and Octavian was keen to present the successes as establishing peace terra marique.101 This is prominently mentioned in both the inscription on the column from 36 and the Nicopolis inscription.102 The processing forces were probably only soldiers, and did not include the rowers. For the fleet at Sicily, we are told that many of the rowers were slaves whom their owners had been required to supply.103 The revival of these naval elements may be a result of Octavian/Augustus’ use of Duilius as a model victor and precursor of Augustus’ own deeds: he furthered the memory of the exemplary Duilius, replicating his column, restoring the original column and the Temple of Janus originally dedicated by Duilius, in addition to putting up an elogium in his Forum.104 Duilius’ inscription (column) might even be one (of many?) possible influences on the Res Gestae of Augustus.105 Duilius also, in the traditional manner, dedicated a temple ex manubiis and thus created his own monument for the battle of Mylae. The Janus temple ad theatrum Marcelli on the Forum Boarium was dedicated around the time of his consulate, probably in connection with his naval victory.106 The temple is close to the Roman docks and may thus have been associated with the peaceful return of the fleet to the city of Rome.107 That the Temple of Janus was probably positioned on the triumphal route also suggests that the route of the naval triumph was similar to that of the regular triumph and ovation. Finally, Agrippa deserves more than just an honourable mention as a naval hero. He helped to secure victories at Mylae, Naulochus and Actium, and for his role he was, as mentioned, rewarded with the corona navalis.108 There was a reversion of Naulochus/Actium circa 16/15, with coins showing the victories of Actium and Naulochus.109 These coins are mainly from Lugdunum, starting in 15, but as Augustus was there at the time he may well have had a personal input into the choice of types.110 In 18 Agrippa was promoted as ‘co-­regent’, through

48

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

the award of tribunicia potestas and renewed imperium for five years.111 Aggripa’s new position was celebrated it seems with a renewed interest in the naval victories of Octavian. The corona navalis/rostrata/classica was traditionally awarded to the first man to board an enemy ship in arms.112 There seems no reason to doubt these statements, and indeed one may speculate that the practice was instituted by Duilius. It would have been marines who would normally have won it. Crowns and other decorations were awarded by commanders immediately after victories, and the winners were entitled to wear them in the subsequent triumph. The procession in some naval triumphs will have included the holder of a naval crown – by definition there can only have been one per triumph. Varro served as one of Pompeius’ legates in his pirate campaign and was awarded the rostrate crown (Plin., NH 7.115; 16.7). This will have been for the general distinction of his services rather than specifically for having boarded an enemy ship in person. Agrippa’s award fits into the pattern in this period of the highest military decorations becoming exceptional awards for the dominant individuals.113 The same can be said of Octavian and the civic crown and the corona obsidionalis.114 Several sources claim that Agrippa was the first or only holder of this crown.115 Either this tradition is simply wrong, or his crown was different from the ordinary naval crown. On some representations it does appear as a sort of combination of a rostral and mural crown. Under the Empire the corona classica became a high military distinction, awarded only to ex-­consuls, lacking any naval connection.116

3

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping This chapter focuses on the differing approaches to the Fasti Triumphales, the inscribed lists of triumphs from the Forum Romanum. The Fasti Capitolini, which include both the Fasti Consulares and the Fasti Triumphales (all three are modern names), are inscribed on marble and were discovered in the 1540s. They were probably on the Arch of Augustus,1 and erected circa 19 BCE.2 They are today to be found in the Capitoline museum, Palazzo dei Conservatori. The Fasti Capitolini appears to be the first time the consular and triumphal fasti were erected together.3 Surprisingly, the Fasti Capitolini contains no calendar.4 It was an altogether different project. Interestingly, the inscribed fasti presented two different chronological objectivities: the consular fasti began in 509 BCE, the Fasti Triumphales with Romulus.5 The Fasti Triumphales is the single most important piece of evidence for the Republican triumph, recording triumphs from Romulus (753: Degrassi 1947: 64–5, 534) to the year 19 (Cornelius Balbus: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 571). It also identifies special types of triumphs in addition to the triumph proper: ovations, naval triumphs, and Alban Mount triumphs. The first naval triumph (Degrassi 1947: 76–7, 548: C. Duilius 260 BCE) and the first Alban Mount triumph (Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 549: Papirius Maso 231 BCE) reveal that the compilers accepted that the curule triumph (obviously) as well as the ovation were ‘original’ celebrations.6 The triumph of Publilius Philo in 326 is also singled out, as it is mentioned that he was the first proconsul to be granted a triumph.7 Before turning to the question of triumphal evidence and falsi triumphi, two issues regarding the Fasti Triumphales are of pressing importance. There is no denying that Balbus’ name completes the fourth and final pilaster of the Fasti Triumphales.8 Two questions therefore arise: firstly, why does the list not conclude with the triple triumph in 29?9 The answer might be that it may have appeared curious to ignore all post-29 triumphs (even though the arch commemorated victories of Augustus, the inscription broadens the scope and

50

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

commemorates all triumphal victors. This does not however necessarily suggest that 29 was not the culmination of triumphal endeavours (see below). Secondly, why conclude with L. Balbus (minor)? The next victory that might have been inscribed was the ovation of Tiberius in 9 (triumph in 7). These two central questions need to be considered separately. Balbus’ uncle was L. Balbus (major), born in Gades and his status was low, a rich Spanish businessman, who in 40 became the first foreigner to be made consul.10 I would like to suggest that the reason why Balbus’ triumph concludes the inscription is primarily a matter of chance and chronology. Even if we accept that the Fasti Triumphales were intended to end with the triumph of Balbus, this was only true for the actual monument, and should not be confused with the possibility of triumphal processions in general.11 Triumphs for Augustus’ own family remained possible. Rich has suggested that it may have been the intention to record future triumphs in the new Forum Augustum.12 In the period after Balbus’ triumph it became the new centre of triumphal ideology in Rome, and in 2 it was decreed that the Temple to Mars Ultor should henceforth play a central role in triumphal ritual.13 Warfare in Africa early in Augustus’ reign produced two proconsular triumphs: L. Sempronius Atratinus and L. Cornelius Balbus triumphed in 22 and 19. Balbus thus proved to be the last commander from outside the imperial family to triumph. Nothing suggests a deliberate policy on the matter.14 Warfare in Africa only recommenced in 3 CE, and by this point the practice of granting triumphal ornaments to legati was well established. The same was then the case for proconsuls. This was the result of the Settlement of 28–27 and the division of provinces, which gave Augustus a virtual monopoly of military glory. This was never about the ending or the culmination of triumphs – the first idea is un-Roman and the second could only be tied to the person of the princeps, to Augustus (in 29), and certainly not to Balbus. This development is related to a second question, concerning the Parthian Settlement of 20, at about the same time the Fasti Triumphales was erected. According to Östenberg (2009a: esp. 56) this signals the beginning of a new age of peace,15 although she accepts that war remained part of this development.16 One may point to Res Gestae 13: [Ianum] Quirin[um, quem cl]aussum ess[e maiores nostri voluer]unt, cum [p]er totum i[mperium po]puli Roma[ni terra marique es]set parta victoriis pax (‘Our ancestors wanted Janus Quirinus to be closed when peace had been achieved by victories on land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people’) [trans. Cooley 2009].17 As Augustus emphasized peace was always obtained through victory.

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

51

Östenberg also detects a connection between the closing of the Temple of Janus and the Parthian Settlement. First appearances, however, are at times deceiving. Horace associates the Parthian Settlement with the closing of the Temple of Janus.18 But even if there is no denying what Horace wrote, it is unlikely that the Temple of Janus was closed in 20.19 According to Horace universal peace had already come to Rome and the closing of the Temple of Janus signified that, even if the temple was not as such closed. The second closure followed Augustus’ Spanish campaign of 25.20 The last closure is of uncertain date, but Rich plausibly argues that there may not have been a third closing, and that it remained open until the reign of Nero (Rich 2003: 332 and 355–6.). Res Gestae 13 only mentions that it was decreed closed three times, not that this actually occurred.21 Östenberg is undoubtedly right to propose that peace was a powerful ideological tool, but it was hardly more powerful than war and victory, especially as they are mentioned as inextricable under Augustus (Östenberg 2009a: 69). The question of peace after war was related to the ending of the civil war and the pacification of provinces and borders.22 Roman victory and triumph was never intended to end, and military victory was an integral aspect of being an emperor.23 Östenberg concludes ‘In reality, of course, wars continued. But that is a completely different story’ (Östenberg 2009a: 70). This is very true, but one point must be made: this was always the case. The three decreed closings of the Temple of Janus suggests more than anything that peace was never intended as permanent. Foreign wars were both necessary and positive, but of course only when they resulted in Roman victory. More problematic is her suggestion that the Parthian success was proclaimed as ‘the culmination of Roman triumphs’, as it was only a diplomatic concord and there was no actual triumph.24 If there ever was a culmination of Roman and Augustan triumphs, then it was in 29 with the triple triumph of the princeps.25 Dio Cassius (54.8.3) is wrong to claim that Augustus accepted this triumph (although supplicationes are reasonable), as can be shown from 54.10.4, mentioning that Augustus returned and entered the city by night, as well as the notice in RG 4.1 that he only celebrated two ovations, in 40 and 36.26 This was at best triumph-­ like. The decisive conclusion to be drawn from this is that the celebrated Parthian Settlement was not recorded on the Fasti Triumphales, as no triumph was granted. Of course Augustus portrayed the Parthian Settlement in the traditional Roman manner, as a victory, as shown by the incorporation of the Parthian Standards into the Arch of Actium. Rich (1998: esp. 72–3) demonstrates that Augustus wanted this to be portrayed as a success, in military as well as diplomatic terms. Res Gestae 29.2 rather typically shows a defeated enemy, asking for the friendship of Rome,

52

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

and being shown clementia.27 The Parthian Settlement was associated with military victory and thus suited to the triumphal arch (Actium, thus becoming the Actium-Parthian Arch). It is therefore quite misleading to force a connection between the Parthian Settlement and the idea of the ending of triumphs. It is now time to explore the Fasti Triumphales together with parallel evidence on the Roman triumphs, in order to answer the question of falsification.

The evidence: inventing triumphs (?) The Fasti Triumphales, when taken together with parallel evidence on the Roman triumphs, allows us to address another key question: that of falsification. The picture that emerges from our evidence is problematic, first of all because it is highly fragmentary. During the Late Republic the Romans faced the same problem, albeit perhaps less absolute, in terms of their own fragmentary past. But reading the uncertainty in Late Republican evidence into the past may be unhelpful. The Roman triumph precedes Roman historiography. The vital question is whether the Romans had a clear sense of the triumph as a gradual process and as a ritual. I wish to suggest here that they worked in a way not overly dissimilar to historians today – essentially filling in the blanks, seeking to make sense of the blurred past. The Fasti Triumphales I believe reveals a great interest in the ritual during the reign of Augustus. Beard (2007: 76) appropriately asks how far back we can trace this rigorous attention to detail, but this is mainly a problem regarding early Roman history, of little or no concern to us here, although there were also voices of concern in Late Republican Rome. Cicero (Brut. 62) complains about the distorting effect of funeral orations on the records of Roman history, including false triumphs: quamquam his laudationibus historia rerum nostrarum est facta mendosior. multa enim scripta sunt in eis quae facta non sunt, falsi triumphi, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones, . . . (‘Yet by these laudatory speeches our history has become quite distorted; for much is set down in them which never occurred, false triumphs, too large a number of consulships, false genealogies and transitions of patricians to plebeian status, . . .’).

Ridley (1983) advocates that history is corrupted due to the ancient sources’ extensive use of family records, but he never asks whether these family archives were the only source of information. Importantly, Cicero is complaining about

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

53

family histories, not historical record per se. Livy (8.40.3-5) provides us with another example: nec facile est aut rem rei aut auctorem auctori praeferre. vitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reor falsisque imaginum titulis, dum familiae ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorumque fallenti mendacio trahunt; inde certe et singulorum gesta et publica monumenta rerum confusa. nec quisquam aequalis temporibus illis scriptor exstat, quo satis certo auctore stetur. (‘It is not easy to choose between the accounts or the authorities. The records have been vitiated, I think, by funeral eulogies and by lying inscriptions under portraits, every family endeavouring mendaciously to appropriate victories and magistracies to itself – a practice which has certainly wrought confusion in the achievements of individuals and in the public memorials of events. Nor is there extant any writer contemporary with that period, on whose authority we may safely take our stand’).

Livy is confused because he knows a triumph was held, but he does not know which magistrate had celebrated it (Livy 8.40.4-5), thus suggesting confusion rather than corruption. The Fasti Triumphales mentions that the two consuls triumphed (322: Fulvius Curvus and Fabius Maximus Rullianus: Degrassi 1947: 70–1, 542), whereas Livy identified the dictator Cornelius Cossus as the celebrant (Livy 39.15). Livy is clearly in this case unhappy about the state of the evidence and may even have picked the wrong man, but, crucially, he records two alternative versions.28 The story refers to early Roman history and Livy simply sets out the problems of historians working on periods with little or distorted evidence.29 He refers to what is best understood as a specific and problematic example. Flower (1996: 134) suggests that the two references in Cicero (Brut. 62) and Livy (8.40) show how influential funerary laudations were. This claim must however be understood within its chronological setting: Livy is writing about the remote past and even Cicero must be talking mainly about the invention of past triumphs for contemporary purposes. We should not judge all triumphal history by these isolated pieces of evidence. The case mentioned by Livy shows why Rome kept catalogues of a commander’s booty and why lists of triumphs, such as the Fasti Triumphales, were erected in Rome (see below). Family records no doubt were a problem, as well as a source of information, but Livy’s comments show more than anything an awareness of the problem. We do not have reason to suspect much distortion in the Late Republican entries of the Fasti Triumphales.30 According to Beard (2007: 77) the Fasti Triumphales does not present us with a ‘single orthodox triumphal chronology’.31 She points to triumphs mentioned

54

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

solely on the fasti, but not in Livy, and highlights conflicting evidence regarding Scipio in 206,32 and the case of Manlius Vulso in 187.33 She does make a valid point, but Richardson (1975: 52) rightly suggests that Polybius’ reference is a passing one and sources which mention a refusal are less likely to be distorted. One should add that Polybius was closely associated with the Cornelii Scipiones. The second example is more difficult, as Florus may derive, directly or indirectly, from Livy.34 But there is no reason to assume that Livy mentioned every triumph. Surely the surprise would be greater had Livy mentioned triumphs not present on inscribed lists of triumphs. Cicero provides further information about family history. In a letter to Atticus from February 50 (Cicero 6.1.17),35 there is a comment on a statua Africani: Metellus Scipio had confused two statues and taken a statue of the younger Africanus (cos. 147, cens. 142) for one of his great-­ grandfather P. Scipio Nasica Sarapio (cos. 138). The latter never held the Censorship. Metellus was thus unaware that ‘CENS’ could not apply to Sarapio. As a result Cicero is making fun of Metellus’ ignorance (o anistoresian turpem!) (17): de statua Africani (o pragmaton asunkloston! sed me id ipsum delectavit in tuis litteris), ain tu? Scipio hic Metellus proavum suum nescit censorem non fuisse? atqui nihil habuit aliud inscriptum nisi ‘cos’ ea statua quae ad Opis parte postica in excelso est. in illa autem quae est ad polukleous Herculem inscriptum est ‘cos. cen.’; quam esse eiusdem status, amictus, anulus, imago ipsa declarat. at me hercule ego, cum in turma inauratarum equestrium quas hic Metellus in Capitolio posuit animadvertissem in Serapionis subscriptione Africani imaginem, erratum fabrile putavi, nunc video Metelli. o anistoresian turpem! (‘About Africanus’ statue (what a rag-­bag this is! But that was just what I liked about your letter), you don’t say so! Doesn’t this Scipio Metellus know that his great-­grandfather never held the Censorship? While the statue which stands on the high ground behind the Temple of Ops has no caption except ‘cos’, the one that stands by the Hercules of Polycles is inscribed ‘cos. cens.’; and the stance, the drapery, the ring, the likeness itself declares it to be of the same man. Upon my word, when I saw Africanus’ likeness over Sarapio’s name in the cavalcade of gilded equestrian statues which this Metellus set up on the Capitol, I thought it was a workman’s blunder. Now that I see the blunder was Metellus’. What disgraceful ignorance!’) [original and trans. Shackleton Bailey 1968].

The story suggests, if nothing else, that not all Romans knew much about their ancestors. Two points can be made: if in doubt, there may have been a tendency to select the most notable or prestigious version, although not always against better judgement; and there was always the possibility that a commentator such as Cicero would mock such ignorance. The idea of a single Republican triumphal

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

55

tradition is thus altogether erroneous. It is in conflict with the evidence: a difference between the triumphal fasti and Livy is the missing verb triumphare in the Fasti Triumphales entries, as there was no need.36 The appearance on the Fasti Triumphales meant a triumph had been celebrated. It also provides the filiation of the triumphator, and the day and year of the triumph. The Fasti Urbisalvienses does not mention filiations; the Fasti Barberiniani omits filiation, years and offices, but ends with the words palmam dedit (‘he dedicated the palm’).37 Crucially, they do not use the same formula and thus there are independent traditions. In fact the Fasti Barberiniani may well be older than the Fasti Triumphales.38 These various traditions were to some degree brought together in the Fasti Triumphales. Even if for victorious commanders during the Republic victories and triumphs were the ultimate expression of the competitive ethos found in the elite, the Fasti Triumphales and other lists were designed in part to regulate this competitiveness. As mentioned above, Beard (cf. Bastien 2007) seeks problems and inconsistencies. This is a reasonable task, but a few examples should not make us dispose of Rome’s triumphal history in its entirety. The (Late) Republic witnessed extensive debates about triumphs, including past triumphs. Political debates on specific triumphs suggest a growing concern with proof and proper conduct in triumphal matters, although the extent to which this actually occurred when triumphs were voted is a very different matter. The triumph had always been part of the political process at Rome, but this does not de facto make the evidence profoundly unsound. This raises the issue of triumphal housekeeping. Official records and dedications from the Capitoline would have been the main sources for the compilation of the Fasti Triumphales. This material suffers deficiencies similar to family records, but they were the key source the Roman compilers of the Fasti Triumphales had at their disposal. Furthermore, we know of various (state) records recording triumphs: Caesius Bassus mentions ancient tablets on the Capitoline erected by commanders who were about to celebrate a triumph.39 Sempronius Gracchus put up a tablet in the temple of Mater Matuta with a detailed account of his exploits in Sardinia, including the number of dead or captured enemies (8,000) and subsequent triumph (Livy 41.28.8-10). Fronto writes:40 . . .; verum omnes, uti res postulabat, breves nec ullam rerum gestarum expeditionem continentes. in hunc autem modum, quo scripsisti tu, extant Catuli litterae, quibus res a se iacturis atque damnis gestas ut lauro merendas historici exemplo exposuit; verum turgent elate prolata teneris prope verbis.

56

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War (‘. . .; but all, as the occasion required, short and without any description of events. In the style, however, of your letter there is extant a despatch of Catulus, in which he has set forth in the historical manner his own exploits, chequered with losses and failure, as deserving of the laurel crown’).

This refers to Lutatius Catulus (cos. 102) and his triumph in 101 over the Cimbri. He wrote a commentarii, probably based on his laurelled letter to the Senate, or at least containing similar details.41 This may very well have been the traditional way victorious commanders recorded their exploits. The laurelled letter no doubt followed an established outline. The famous triumphal inscriptions of Pompeius Magnus similarly describe the defeated enemies and towns captured in great detail.42 Cicero adds that a catalogue of booty was submitted to the state treasury,43 often from abroad before the booty was shipped back to Rome.44 A parallel example is Livy (26.21.6-10) on Marcellus, providing a very detailed description of booty on the day of his ovation (26.21.6-9): inde ovans multam prae se praedam in urbem intulit. cum simulacro captarum Syracusarum catapultae ballistaeque et  alia omnia instrumenta belli lata et pacis diuturnae regiaeque opulentiae ornamenta, argenti aerisque fabrefacti vis, alia supellex pretiosaque vestis et multa nobilia signa, quibus inter primas Graeciae urbes Syracusae ornatae fuerant. Punicae quoque victoriae signum octo ducti elephanti; . . . (‘Then in his ovation he caused a great amount of booty to be carried before him into the city. Together with a representation of captured Syracuse were carried catapults and ballistae and all the other engines of war, and the adornments of a long peace and of royal wealth, a quantity of silverware and bronzeware, other furnishings and costly fabrics, and many notable statues, with which Syracuse had been adorned more highly than most cities of Greece. As a sign of triumph over Carthaginians as well, eight elephants were in the procession’).

This is the first recorded instance of a representation of the captured city in the triumphal celebrations. That such information was taken from state records is further supported in the case of Pompeius. Pliny, talking about pearls, refers to the official triumphal records of Pompeius (HN 37.12):45 id uti planius noscatur, verba ex ipsis Pompei triumphorum actis subiciam (‘To make my point clearer, I shall append statements taken directly from the official records of Pompey’s triumph’).

This seems to be a record of triumph, not merely the booty. Appian also provides us with a very detailed account of Pompeius’ triumph over Mithridates (App., Mithr. 116–117):

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

57

Ὁ δὲ ἐθριάμβευσεν ἐπὶ λαμπροτάτης καὶ ἧς οὔτις πρὸ τοῦ δόξης, ἔτη ἔχων πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα, δύο ἐφεξῆς ἡμέραις, ἐπὶ πολλοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπό τε τοῦ Πόντου καὶ Ἀρμενίας καὶ Καππαδοκίας καὶ Κιλικίας καὶ Συρίας ὅλης καὶ Ἀλβάνων καὶ Ἡνιόχων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν τῶν ἐν Σκύθαις καὶ Ἰβηρίας τῆς ἑῴας … Εἵποντο δὲ αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸ ἅρμα οἱ συστρατευσάμενοι τῶν ἡγεμόνων, οἳ μὲν ἐπὶ ἵππων, οἳ δὲ πεζοί. Παρελθὼν δ’ ἐς τὸ Καπιτώλιον οὐδένα τῶν αἰχμαλώτων ἔκτεινεν ὡς ἕτεροι τῶν θριάμβους παραγαγόντων, ἀλλ’ εἰς τὰς πατρίδας ἔπεμψε δημοσίοις δαπανήμασι, χωρὶς τῶν βασιλικῶν· καὶ τούτων μόνος Ἀριστόβουλος εὐθὺς ἀνῃρέθη καὶ Τιγράνης ὕστερον. Ὁ μὲν δὴ θρίαμβος ἦν τοιόσδε. (‘He was awarded a triumph exceeding in brilliancy any that had gone before, being now only thirty-­five years of age. It occupied two successive days, and many nations were represented in the procession from Pontus, Armenia, Cappadocia, Cilicia and all Syria, besides Albanians, Heniochi, Achaeans of Scythia, and Eastern Iberians . . . His chariot was followed by the officers who had shared the campaigns with him, some on horseback and others on foot. When he arrived at the Capitol he did not put any of the prisoners to death, as had been the custom of other triumphs, but sent them all home at the public expense, except the kings. Of these Aristobulus alone was at once put to death and Tigranes somewhat later. Such was the character of Pompey’s triumph’).

Again, all this information should also be seen in light of the commander’s quest for a triumph, which began in the field. He would have sent a despatch to the Senate, adorned with laurel, in which he reported the victory. A further example from the Late Republic supports the view that the Romans were concerned with the authenticity of their past. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (consul 121) claims that his ancestor Aemilius Paullus triumphed three times,46 but only one triumph before Pydna is likely, and indeed, only two triumphs are recorded on the Fasti Triumphales.47 This example is telling not so much in terms of the additional triumph itself, but due to the crucial detail that the claim was not accepted beyond the family. One should of course add that Augustus might have had a vested interest in limiting the number of people with three triumphs, a list that included himself.48 This question of how to account for a victory, and indeed a defeat, is closely related to the question of obtaining a triumph. In particular, how, and by whom, was the number of casualties on the battlefield calculated? The attitude of relative carelessness towards their own dead certainly suggests that this often may have been impossible to judge. Commanders would certainly not have underestimated the extent of their victories, and obtaining a triumph required a significant victory with substantial enemy losses. The evidence mentioning bodies littering battlefields is useful here. A few examples may suffice:49 Livy 22.51.5-9 describes

58

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

the battlefield at Cannae in 216, specifically the day after the battle, with all the corpses remaining on the actual battlefield.50 This is of interest because Valerius Maximus tells us that commanders faced punishment if they falsified the numbers of enemy killed and citizens lost (2.8.1). There is indication that there was a problem. There is simply no reason to doubt its historicity. The commanders will have mentioned these figures in the laurelled letters sent back to the Senate and then later in the Senate meeting, deciding on their request for a triumph. There were also other channels of information. Livy mentions a case from 193, when the consul Cornelius Merula applied for a triumph, which was declined after his legate Claudius Marcellus informed the Senate that Merula had not destroyed the enemy army and lost too many of his men (35.6.8-10).51 Livy also illustrates the problems of validating the information sent by the victor to the Senate with the case of Manlius Vulso in 187, mentioned above. Fearing he will not receive a triumph, Manlius turns to the case of Fabius Labeo, who triumphed even though he allegedly did not fight an enemy (Livy 38.44.9-50.3). Defending his victory and his right to triumph, he claims to have fought numerous enemies (100,000), killing and capturing many (40,000), taken two of their camps, and to have pacified the area (Livy 38.47.5-6; Lundgreen 2011: 206– 7). This indicates problems of how to quantify a victory. In the end Manlius Vulso triumphed (Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 554). A dispute between Marius and Catulus over who won the victory against the Teutones, led to confrontations amongst the respective soldiers of the two commanders. In the end arbitrators were taken to the battlefield and shown bodies (Plut., Mar. 27), a scenario that would no doubt have been much more complicated in, for example, Spain or Asia Minor. This is not only a question of number games but about the practicalities of warfare.52 There can be little doubt that the Fasti Triumphales also draws on the annalistic tradition.53 The problems regarding the reliability of the Fasti Triumphales is thus greater for the regal period and the early Republic. It seems wise to accept with Oakley that Beloch’s (1926: 86–92) dismissal of the Fasti Triumphales before 300 is extreme, but also to suggest, again with Oakley, that it would have been easier to invent triumphs for the period before 300.54 The annalistic form was flexible. The Annales Maximi, the record of events kept by the Pontifex Maximus, was not equivalent to the record keeping of the consular lists. The Annales Maximi focuses on events and thus records an eclipse of the sun on the 21 June 400.55 The record thus goes back to the fifth century.56 The pontifices displayed their records on a whitened board, the term tabula denoting public display.57 However it was probably also recorded in a more durable format

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

59

– indeed there was an archive known as commentarii or libri.58 According to Servius these were displayed for events on land and sea on a daily basis.59 Rich suggests that they recorded notices of events in the order they occurred and with no grouping by topic or distinction between domi and militiae (Rich 2011a: 15). Archival material was, therefore, in existence (Rich 2011a on the Republican material, including the decrees of the Senate), but it is clear that the lists before the Republic and later differ greatly. The material for the regal period may mostly have consisted of oral tradition and mythic stories.60 The Annales Maximi were probably collated into an account during the reign of Augustus (eighty-­book version).61 Frier dissociates the Annales Maximi from P. Mucius Scaevola, Pontifex Maximus from 130. Rather he suggests it was an antiquarian work and makes a very strong case for an Augustan edition of the chronicle (Frier 1999: esp. 179–200), perhaps published in connection with Augustus’ taking of the post of Pontifiex Maximus in 12.62 Frier (1999: 198–9) sensibly connects this development with other antiquarian research of the period, including the Fasti Consulares, the Fasti Triumphales, the elogia of the Forum of Augustus, the Arval Brethren, and the burning of private and anonymous prophetic books and the cleansing of the Sibylline books.63 This inescapably suggests an Augustan take on the past. The question remains as to how one should approach the Fasti Triumphales as evidence. It is certainly not a fasti,64 but a monumental inscribed list of triumphs. There are some peculiarities in this catalogue. Two examples may suffice: usually the victors appear with the name of their father and grandfather (Balbus is the exception, due to his Spanish ancestry). Therefore, it is striking that the kings before Tarquinius Superbus appear without a grandfather; Tullius lacks even a father. There is little reason to assume that the Romans believed their kings to be purely mythical.65 The Romans thought of their kings as historical figures.66 The construction of the lists is deliberate but it does not follow that it is deliberately false. It is more probable that the compilers sought to write down what they knew, constructing an accurate account of their past.67 An example from 172 again shows that the Fasti Triumphales includes peculiarities. The last magistrate to celebrate an Alban Mount triumph was C. Cicereius, praetor in 173. He ended the conflict on Corsica but did not even receive a supplicatio. According to Livy his army had killed 7,000 enemies in a single battle and peace was granted at the request of the Corsicans (42.7.1-2; cf. 45.15.10). Such achievements might have merited a triumph (pax deinde data potentibus Corsis; and ex Corsica subacta (‘Having subdued Corsica’)) (Livy 42.7.1-2):

60

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War C. Cicereius praetor in Corsica signis collatis pugnavit; septem milia Corsorum caesa, capti amplius mille et septingenti. voverat in ae pugna praetor aedem Iunoni Monetae. pax deinde data petentibus Corsis, et exacta cerae ducenta milia pondo. (‘Gaius Cicereius the praetor fought a pitched battle in Corsica; seven thousand of the Corsicans were killed and more than seventeen hundred captured. During the battle the praetor had vowed a temple to Juno Moneta. Peace was then granted at the request of the Corsicans, and two hundred thousand pounds of wax demanded of them’).

At the meeting in the Temple of Bellona, Cicereius accordingly demanded a triumph for his exploits, even though his spoils were less than impressive.68 Livy writes (42.21.7): is expositis quas in Corsica res gessisset postulatoque frustra triumpho, in monte Albano, quod iam in morem venerat, ut sine publica auctoritate fieret, triumphavit. (‘When he had set forth his achievements in Corsica and had vainly demanded a triumph, he celebrated his triumph on the Alban Mount, which had become customary in order to permit the celebration of a triumph without the authorization of the state’).

The statement regarding custom cannot be verified by Livy’s narrative.69 This was possibly a question of legitimization – Cicereius may have claimed, as Minucius Rufus (cos. 197) had earlier (Livy 33.23.3), that the right to triumph without the consent of the Senate had a long tradition. The reason for declining Cicereius’ request for a triumph may have been his social status, having been a clerk of Scipio Africanus; and furthermore, he was only a praetor, another possible objection.70 Indeed, the social background of Cicereius may partly explain why the Albano triumph all but disappeared. But the idea that political support was necessary to claim an Alban Mount triumph appears to be mistaken, and surely the Senate would have stopped this particular kind of triumph sooner had they been able to do so. Indeed, the fact that only four are recorded might suggest they partly succeeded. The Fasti Triumphales entry is most intriguing because of the inclusion of the fact that the man was a scribe: [C. Ci]cer[eius – f., qui s]crib(a) [fuera]t, pro pr(aetore) ex Corsica in monte Albano k. Oct. an. D[XXCI] [Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 556].

This is certainly no invention, but a fact, and whoever compiled the list thought it striking enough to include. We must, or so it seems, accept that the information used for the Fasti Triumphales may come from different sources and genres. This particular detail – scriba – stands out from the Fasti Triumphales and it is

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

61

unlikely to have derived from a Republican triumphal list, inscribed or otherwise, as the Albano triumph was not officially sanctioned. This is extra information of a quite different origin and suggests that the Alban Mount triumphs were not part of the triumphal records of Rome.71 Where the Fasti Triumphales provides the filiation of the triumphator, the Fasti Urbisalvienses, from a small town in Picenum, does, as mentioned above, make no reference to filiations and equally no year is given. However, it does, like the Fasti Triumphales, mention that Cicereius was a scriba: [C. Cicereius], qui scr(iba) fuer(at), pro pr(aetore) ex Cors(ica) in mont(e) Alb(ano) k. Octo. [Degrassi 1947: 338–9].72

This reveals that the Fasti Trumphales is not exclusively an archival document, but a piece of historico-­antiquarian reconstruction, so that its compilers might have felt entitled to include additional details that seemed appropriate. One might compare it to the Fasti Praenestini, which is replete with curious detail and quite different from the other calendar fasti, or such enterprises of Augustan scholarship as the elogia in the Forum of Augustus (Suet. Aug. 31.5: most of them had celebrated triumphs), and the inscription with the names of the magistrates in whose years the Feriae Latinae were celebrated at the Alban Mount.73 Indeed, it is quite possible that Verrius Flaccus had a hand in the production of both the Fasti Triumphales and the Fasti Praenestini.74 Geiger (2008: 158–9) sensibly points towards Verrius Flaccus, the compiler of the Fasti Praenestini, an ex-­slave and tutor of the grandchildren of Augustus. There is no doubt that Verrius’ position as the tutor of Gaius and Lucius shows if anything the close relationship to the regime.75

Nachtrag, Fasti Capitolini The Fasti Consulares dates to around 30.76 According to Dio Cassius (51.19.3-5), the ‘damnatio memoriae’ of Antonius took place before his death, after the battle of Actium. This provides a fitting context for the erasure of the name of Antonius in the Fasti Consulares (Degrassi 1947: 56–9: 47 and 37 BCE). This happened at a time when Octavian was absent from Rome and the Senate had no reason to believe that this might be an unpopular decision with Octavian. The restoration was carried out after the return of Octavian in 29. A similar story is known about Caesar: after Pharsalus the Senate overthrew statues of Sulla and Pompeius (some unwillingly, suggesting they thought Caesar wanted this) at the Rostra (Dio Cass.

62

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

42.18.2). They were restored by Caesar (Dio Cass. 43.49.1). An alternative Augustan parallel is the disgrace of Iullus Antonius in 2, but according to Tacitus this did not affect the public records.77 Furthermore, the Fasti Triumphales was put up before 2 and there is no sign of erasure here of the name Antonius. The disgrace of Iullus Antonius was simply too irrelevant for a ‘damnatio memoriae’. The Fasti Consulares shares the Fasti Triumphales’ use of additional information. Feeney (2007: 172–82) has compiled a list as follows: turning points are mentioned.78 The consuls of 367 are followed by the notice that they were now elected from the plebs (Degrassi 1947: 32–3: [consules e pl]ebe primum creari coepti) and it is noted that 172 was the first occasion both consuls were plebeian (Degrassi 1947: 50–1: ambo primi de plebe). Similarly, some major wars are mentioned (Degrassi 1947: 40–1: Bellum Punicum Primum (264 BCE), Degrassi 1947: 44–5: [Bellum Pun]icum [Secu]nd[u]m (218 BCE) etc.). The practice of placing the wars before the year to which they relate is also known from the Fasti Amiternini.79 Unfortunately, the wars of 43–30 are missing due to the fragmented state of the inscription, but we may assume that some of them were mentioned. The entry of 368 (Degrassi 1947: 32–3) mentions a dictator and a magister equitum, who were elected in order to manage public affairs, but resigned after issuing an edict about military service in accordance with a decree of the Senate. A new dictator and magister equitum replaced them in order to suppress unrest and manage public affairs (seditionis sedandae et r(ei) g(erundae) c(aussa)). The consuls of 393 were wrongly elected and resigned (Degrassi 1947: 30–1; cf. 249: dictator forced to resign (Degrassi 1947: 42–3); 215 BCE (Degrassi 1947: 46–7); 162 BCE (Degrassi 1947: 50–1); 108 BCE: convicted while in office (Degrassi 1947: 54–5)), and some magistrates are mentioned with additional and changing names (Degrassi 1947: 36–7: 312, 310 BCE; Degrassi 1947: 38–9: 294 etc.), most famously Augustus himself (Degrassi 1947: 56–9: 44–43 BCE). Even more of an oddity is the entry of 295: the consul Decius Mus devoted himself and met his death in a battle against the Samnites and the Gauls (Degrassi 1947: 38–9: [s]e devovit; MRR, 177, with more evidence). The consul of 208 died of his wounds (Degrassi 1947: 46–7: ex vol(nere), others were killed in office (Degrassi 1947: 48–9: 176 BCE) or in battle (Degrassi 1947: 36–7). The consuls of 179 are intriguingly mentioned as brothers (Degrassi 1947: 48–9). The year 23 bears the name of Augustus as consul. However, he resigned, which is mentioned on the fasti, and L. Sestius became consul in his place (Degrassi 1947: 58–9). We are then told that Augustus accepted the tribunicia potestas ([Imp. Caesar Divi f. C. n. Augustus, postea quam consu]latu se abdicavit, tri[b(uniciam) pot(estatem) accepit], the abdication having already been

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

63

mentioned after this consular entry). This is evident in 22 where Augustus is mentioned after the consuls, with his tribunic power (Degrassi 1947: 58–9). Again in 12, together with Agrippa, Augustus is mentioned as holding tribunic power for the eleventh time (Degrassi 1947: 58–9). From 1 CE Augustus with tribunicia potestas is listed first, before the consuls are mentioned (Degrassi 1947: 60–1; in 5 CE with Tiberius as his colleague). This constitutes a new imperial dating system, with the imperial family at the centre of attention.80 It is time to return to the Alban Mount triumph, in order to explain in more detail the entry of Cicereius and in general the triumphal tradition, as mentioned in the Fasti Triumphales.

The Alban Mount triumph Usually triumphs culminated with the approach, by the Sacred Way, to the Forum Romanum, and then ascended to the Capitoline and the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. According to the ancient evidence the ovation also concluded on the Capitoline.81 The Alban Mount triumph, in contrast, concluded outside Rome. As a result, as mentioned in Chapter 2, the Alban Mount triumph involved restrictions: there was no ceremony at the temple to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, no crossing of the pomerium, no relinquishing of imperium, no possibility of a tribune’s veto, and no public funds provided by the Senate. According to the ancient evidence it was celebrated by virtue of the commander’s imperium and without the official backing of the res publica.82 Modern scholarly discussion has concentrated on the question as to whether the Alban Mount triumph was a ‘real’ triumph or not: Mommsen, for example, discussing Rechtsgültigkeit, prioritizes the fact that these ceremonies are mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales and were thus by definition recognized as triumphs, perhaps even equal to the triumph proper.83 Many other scholars disagree to varying degrees, primarily due to the difficulties and at times contradictory ancient evidence.84 It is not always easy to separate these two scholarly traditions. There are clear problems in conceptualizing the celebration, mainly due to the fact that the Alban Mount triumph is mentioned on the inscribed list of triumphs.85

The Alban Mount triumph and the Feriae Latinae Scholars have noted that there are topographical similarities between the Capitoline and the Alban Mount, and that both had a temple to Jupiter. The

64

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

claim that Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Jupiter Latiaris might be one and the same god does not however take into account that the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was on the Capitoline. Furthermore, this also does not allow for the topographical differences, the notion of ‘religion of place’, nor explain why so few Alban Mount triumphs are recorded as taking place.86 Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the ceremony on the Alban Mount sought to resemble that in Rome. The question remains as to whether the geographical and religious location is the main reason behind the Alban Mount triumph as the next best thing to a triumph in Rome, if a triumph was denied.87 Brennan has convincingly refuted the idea of a revival of an old Latin ritus. The Latins to our knowledge never celebrated triumphs.88 Cases of unofficial triumphs within the pomerium exclude the possibility that celebrations in Rome itself were impossible. A more probable scenario involves the Feriae Latinae. This ceremony was held for four days under the presidency of the consuls prior to their departure for their provinces,89 and was held in honour of Jupiter Latiaris. The sacrifice was to Jupiter on behalf of the Latin nations (Dion. Hal. 8.87.6). Upon taking office the consuls had to designate a starting date for the Feriae Latinae (senatus consultum: Cic., Fam. 8.6.3). All Roman magistrates participated, including the tribunes, who could not normally leave Rome.90 Livy writes (25.12.1-2):91 Romae consules praetoresque usque ad ante diem quintum kal. Maias Latinae tenuerunt. eo die perpetrato sacro in monte in suas quisque provincias proficiscuntur. (‘At Rome the consuls and praetors were detained by the Latin Festival until the 26th of April. After performing the rites on that day on the Mount, each set out for his assignment’).

The consul made offerings in Rome on the Capitoline and then again on the Alban Mount.92 Normally he would later return to Rome, in some cases in triumph. Marcellus, who began his campaign as consul, and the other magistrates who celebrated an Alban Mount triumph, would have gone to the Alban Mount upon leaving Rome and then on to their province. On return, if a consul had a triumph declined, an Alban Mount triumph may have appeared as a poor second, but would have remained a potent display of consular authority. He would return to the last place where he, as consul, presided over an important Roman festival. The Feriae Latinae lent religious and political aura to the Alban Mount triumph.93 If the motive behind the Alban Mount triumph was indeed to echo the celebration of the Feriae Latinae, Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ description of the festival

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

65

(4.49.2-3) provides further insight: the original Latin Festival was on the Alban Mount because this was at the centre of the Latin nations. This was not, therefore, merely a substitute for the Capitoline in Rome, although it does not discount the possibility that there was an analogy between the final stage of the triumph proper in Rome and the celebration of the Alban Mount triumph at the site of the Feriae Latinae.94 Even if this triumph was not officially sanctioned by the Roman Senate during the Middle Republic, most of those celebrating it had a consular imperium: Papirius Maso (cos. 231) and Minucius Rufus (cos. 197) were consuls, Marcellus (cos. 222) proconsul. In the later instances, Caesar was dictator and Drusus was consul. Cicereius was only a praetor and it was thus quite inappropriate for him to celebrate an Alban Mount triumph, tied as it was to the authority of the consulship.95

Caesar: reinventing tradition According to Dio Cassius, in 44 Caesar was given the honour to enter Rome on horseback (in ovation) from the Alban Mount, where he had participated in the Feriae Latinae (44.4.3).96 There was neither victory nor enemy in Caesar’s ovatio ex monte Albano,97 a scenario repeated in the case of the triumvirs M. Antonius and Octavian after the pact of Brundisium in 40.98 Caesar’s ovation was the first to coincide with the Feriae Latinae. The ovation was not celebrated on the Alban Mount, but in Rome: it was his entry into Rome on returning from the Feriae Latinae (adventus). Thus the ovation could not be said to be in monte Albano, since it did not take place there, and ex monte Albano was appropriate, although of course it sits somewhat strangely alongside all the other ‘ex’ entries, wherein the reference is to the territory where the victory had been won.99 The closest precedent for Caesar’s celebration was that of Marcellus in 211, although that differed in that, firstly, it followed a military success, and secondly, it was not coordinated with the Feriae Latinae. Rather, Marcellus had held an Alban Mount triumph before returning to Rome in ovation. The Fasti Triumphales records Caesar’s celebration as a single ceremony: ovans ex monte Albano, although it does not say that he celebrated an Alban Mount triumph. According to a recent article on the Feriae Latinae, the triumph is not the way to understand the ovation of Caesar in 44.100 The parallel joint ovation of Antonius and Octavian in 40 is understood as something altogether different. However they do share the crucial detail that they were awarded without preceding victories. The triumvirs received it because they brought peace through diplomatic concord, as opposed to civil war – they were in fact forced by their

66

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

soldiers to find an alternative to war, but the result is the same. This may also be similar to Aemilius Lepidus’ settlement in 47 (Degrassi 1947: 566) and certainly that with Sextus Pompeius in 44, celebrated in 43, but with one major difference: Lepidus received a triumph, not an ovation.101 The crucial point is that the ovation of Caesar was recorded on the Fasti Triumphales, rendering it a triumphal celebration. The ovations of 44 and 40 were both awarded for reasons other than military victory – this is exceptional on the Fasti Triumphales and clearly brings them together. This could be a plan to ‘militarize’ an achievement – and thus invoke the associated sense of glory – by deliberately celebrating it as an ovation. The mention, however, of peace through settlement in 40 and the lack of any military events at all in 44 does render it a dubious association (RG 13: parta victoriis pax – well, not always it appears). Dio Cassius discusses excessive honours being given to Caesar (44.3-4), including the right to wear triumphal dress and the right to offer spolia opima, as if he had slain an enemy commander. These honours were once again awarded without prior victories. This development in absurdum had in fact begun earlier: in 48 the Senate voted a triumph to Caesar over Juba and the Romans fighting with him before the war had actually begun.102 This suggests that the triumph was becoming a medium for negotiating status and prestige in a monarchy. Caesar will have proceeded directly from the Alban Mount to the ovation – it is hard to imagine any alternative – and therefore the Fasti Triumphales mentions this as a combined celebration. It clarified that Caesar returned, in ovation, from the Alban Mount, through the Porta Capena, not the Porta Triumphalis. Similarly, Claudius Marcellus may have entered through the Porta Capena in 211.103 In the case of the triumvirs, as mentioned, they were given the ovation for avoiding civil war. We have a quite different and novel form of ovation, namely the ovation simply as a ceremonial entry into Rome, without a preceding war. Ex monte Albano suggests that Caesar’s celebration was similar in concept. This does not exclude the possibility that Caesar also wished to invoke the ancient traditions of Latium, such as the Feriae Latinae and the sacrifice on Mons Albanus. Indeed, in 45 he had accepted the curious right to use the calcei mullei as the reges Albani (Dio Cass. 43.43.2). This may have been Caesar’s way of presenting his unusual ovation as a legitimate celebration, using Claudius Marcellus as his model. Moreover, by celebrating his ovans ex monte Albano at the time of the Feriae Latinae, he was emphasizing his consular authority. He had done so already in December 49: when he marched on Rome and assumed the dictatorship, he repeated the Latin Festival which had been conducted earlier by the two consuls. This way he emphasized the legitimacy of his own authority.104

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

67

Drusus: an important postscript Somewhat surprisingly, Drusus has gone largely unnoticed in the modern scholarship on the Alban Mount triumph. He was due to celebrate a combined Alban Mount triumph and ovation in 9, as part of his return to Rome from his German command. Dio Cassius (55.2.5) emphasizes that the same celebration was being prepared for Drusus as had before been given to Tiberius as an honour (cf. 2.4: ovation and a feast for the people). Furthermore, the Latin Festival was going to be repeated in order for Drusus to celebrate an Alban Mount triumph during the festival. Drusus’ combined celebration would have echoed the precedents of both Marcellus and Caesar.105 Unlike Caesar, however, Drusus had military victories to show, just as had Marcellus. In the end however this never took place as Drusus died. Nevertheless, Drusus’ final entry into Rome did virtually resemble a triumph (Sen. De consolatione ad Marciam 3.1).106

The Fasti Triumphales and the Alban Mount triumph As mentioned above, according to Itgenshorst (see note 31), Augustus sought to situate himself within Republican tradition – and in particular place his ovations of 40 and 36 within this tradition, as they were civil war victories. Moreover, she claims that ovations were not customarily part of Republican triumphal lists.107 But ovations are mentioned on the independent Fasti Barberiniani and almost certainly were part of the Republican tradition, inscribed or otherwise: the Augustan list is unlikely to be the very first inscribed list, but the practice of the public inscriptions may be late.108 This was not a list designed to show uniformity within the spectrum of triumphs, as different triumphs were clearly marked as such.109 She does however rightly point out that the Alban Mount triumph would not normally have been part of this tradition (Itgenshorst 2005: 221, n. 7). However, I would like to consider why this particular ceremony was mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales in the first place. The obvious point is as follows: the fact that the Alban Mount triumph is recorded on the inscription (and always mentioned as a triumph in the ancient evidence) shows that it was recognized as a triumph in Augustan times. It is a statement that the triumph was celebrated. Our evidence is Augustan and the Fasti Triumphales appears to be an Augustan version, a remodelling, of past events and past Republican triumphal lists. This does not mean, however, that it is deliberately false. Having said that, Feeney (2007: esp. 167–89) rightly highlights that the first entry on the Fasti

68

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Triumphales is: Romulus Martis f. rex (Degrassi 1947: 64–5, 534), and that the next son of a god appears in 40: Imperator Caesar Divi f. (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568). He concludes that Augustus used the triumphal list to ‘create for himself this loop back to the time of divine origins’ (Feeney 2007: 181). But to suggest, as some scholars do, that the Alban Mount triumph simply ranked below the triumph is a problematic notion: it was not granted by the Senate and represented a protest against a senatorial refusal to award a triumph. They were triumphs, of course, but not officially sanctioned triumphs and thus altogether different. In a sense they existed outside the triumphal categories controlled by the Senate. The Fasti Triumphales entries have confused the matter unnecessarily. Considering the Fasti Triumphales in isolation, there is no difference in principle between the different kinds of triumphs (the ovation is not mentioned as a triumph of lesser note), although some are marked out as special triumphs (ovation, Alban Mount triumph and naval triumph).110 The main reason that the Alban Mount triumphs are part of the Fasti Triumphales is, I would suggest, Caesar’s ovans ex monte Albano.111 Livy (38.50.1-3) claims that the Senate’s criteria for triumph were closely linked to mos maiorum. Octavian undoubtedly thought it wise to mention Caesar’s 44 ovation as precedent for his own problematic joint ovation with Antonius, as Caesar may have cited Marcellus for similar reasons. This, however, created and still creates problems of conceptualizing the celebration. What began as a protest ended as an officially sanctioned triumph: the Alban Mount triumphs of the Middle Republic ceased to be voices of protest, albeit they had been very significant and provocative statements by the commander, insisting that he did not need senatorial approval. Crucially, all the Mount Alban triumphs of the Middle Republic have one thing in common: they originate in the fact that the triumphator had a triumph proper declined by the Senate. They were recognized, retrospectively, as triumphs and became part of the Fasti Triumphales. That Caesar almost certainly never celebrated an Alban Mount triumph was less significant: he and Marcellus were good examples to follow. The question arises as to why only four celebrated Albano triumphs are recorded. To return to Rome and triumph within the pomerium, even though a triumph was declined, was too extreme an act. The alternative was for a brief spell the Alban Mount triumph, even though this was also an extreme voice of discontent and a critique of senatorial consensus – and hence only four took place. Topographical and other similarities between the Alban Mount triumph and the triumph proper should not mislead us into assuming that this was a mere copy of the triumph proper. It was celebrated on the Alban Mount because

The Fasti Triumphales and Triumphal Housekeeping

69

this was the location of the last official act of the consuls before leaving for their provinces and thus a natural point of return should a triumph be declined. In addition to the religious significance of the Alban Mount, such an act also represented a display of the prestige and independence of consular authority as a clear sign of discontent towards the Senate. As a short postscript, one might add that the Alban Mount triumph also corresponds to the Augustan ideology of peace after victory: from the days of Tarquinius Superbus, the supposed founder of the Feriae Latinae, all hostilities were suspended during the festival, between the Latin cities and Rome and amongst the Latin cities themselves.112 During the civil war period this would have been a powerful tool for Caesar, and later Augustus, to place emphasis on pax deorum as a symbol of the ending of civil war.113

4

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

The following two chapters consider Late Republican triumphal developments – not merely triumphs for civil wars, but triumphs in the age of civil war – while also taking parallel developments into account. Opening with Gaius Marius, the chapter will examine the troubled civil war period and the consequences this period had on the triumph. It should be noted that the tendency of commanders seeking to outdo one another in triumphal matters does not exclusively belong to the Late Republic,1 but it does escalate during the period.2 This chapter also seeks to address certain issues relevant to later imperial developments:3 turning points in Late Republican triumphal history, the granting of triumphs in absentia, monopolization of the triumph, triumphal competition and civil war. This promises to shed light on the political impact of the Late Republican triumph. Scholarly consensus presents the Augustan period as a turning point in the history of the Roman triumph. While this is undoubtedly true, there were other key processes and moments during the Late Republic: Marius and the continuous civil war were as much turning points as Augustus, who is best seen as merely the last in a long line of Late Republican dynasts. This honour of triumph gradually changed during the Late Republic, and together with changes to the political system in the first century, led to a significant transformation in the function and character of the triumph. The underlying assumption is that imperial triumphs should not be isolated from the Late Republican transformation of the Roman triumph.4 During the Republic the triumph was a medium for negotiating status and prestige within a highly competitive aristocratic society,5 whereas during the Principate it was a medium for negotiating status and prestige under a monarchy.6 With Augustus and the coming of the Principate the triumph rapidly became the exclusive prerogative of Augustus and his house.7 In fact the monopolization of the triumph had already begun at an earlier point. A survey of the triumph from

72

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Marius to Augustus clearly reveals, unsurprisingly, the importance of the supreme commanders during the period: Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Caesar and the triumvirs, including their supporters, constitute a substantial part of the period’s triumphal history.8 This development is connected to the issue of monopoly of the supreme command and as a result the demise of the joint consular commands.9 This was a change in military and political practice. Indeed, ‘proconsular’ imperium increasingly meant peaceful administration. There is also the related question of legates: in 67 the lex Gabinia provided Pompeius with an extensive imperium over the Mediterranean Sea and its coasts, in order to crush the piracy threat. Pompeius was also allowed to appoint fifteen legates without senatorial approval:10 this development during the Late Republic with legati, operating in place of a magistrate, conducting tasks such as day-­today provincial administration, and with the magistrate himself administrating a province in absentia, fundamentally changed Roman warfare and the possibility of obtaining a triumph. They were usually legates of magistrates holding extraordinary commands.11 Lesser commanders, at times even lacking an independent imperium, thus enjoyed generous opportunities to triumph under the patronage of the dynasts. The triumvirs clearly encouraged their supporters holding such provincial commands to claim triumphs: indeed, twenty such commanders celebrated triumphs between 43 and 26.12 Caesar did the same: the grant of triumphs ex Hispania to his legates, Fabius Maximus and Pedius, who had no independent imperium are part of this development.13 However, even though the period is one marked by profound change, this was hardly a novelty. As discussed in Chapter 2, it was only on Claudius Marcellus’ return from Syracuse in 211 that the issue first arose as to whether a commander could triumph without bringing back his army (Livy 26.21.2-4: Marcellus had been ordered to leave his soldiers in Sicily); and only when Scipio returned from Spain in 206 did the Senate need to consider whether a triumph could be held by a general who had been appointed to the command as a privatus. The principle that triumphs should not be held for civil wars could only have been articulated in the first century when civil wars actually occurred.14 After a victorious commander had been acclaimed by the army, he sent a despatch to the Senate in which he reported the victory and requested the decreeing of a supplicatio. When the commander returned to Rome and sought a triumph, a Senate meeting was held outside the pomerium to hear his report and decide upon his request. The procedure thus normally had two rounds of votes in the Senate.15 It is from these debates, as reported primarily by Livy for the late third and early second centuries, that we generally hear of the various

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

73

conventions governing the award of triumphs.16 Livy writes (38.50.1-3; see also Chapter 2): plus crimina eo die quam defensio valuisset, ni altercationem in serum perduxissent. dimittitur senatus in ea opinione ut negaturus triumphum fuisse videretur. postero die et cognati amicique Cn. Manlii summis opibus adnisi sunt, et auctoritas seniorum valuit, negantium exemplum proditum memoriae esse, ut imperator, qui devictis perduellibus, confecta provincia exercitum reportasset, sine curru et laurea privatus inhonoratusque urbem iniret. hic pudor malignitatem vicit, triumphumque frequentes decreverunt. (‘The accusations would have had more weight that day than the defence had they not prolonged the debate to a late hour. The senate adjourned, having given the impression that the triumph would be refused. The next day the relatives and friends of Manlius exerted all their efforts and the elder senators also prevailed by their influence, saying that no precedent had been handed down in tradition that a commander who, after decisively defeating the enemy and accomplishing the task assigned to him as his province, had brought home his army, should enter the City without the chariot and laurel, a private citizen and without honour. Respect for this tradition prevailed over ill-­will and a full session voted the triumph’).

The key points here are the various precedents and the interesting ‘simple convention’ mentioned by Livy.17 There remains, however, much mileage in accepting Livy: in the end it was politics and only to a lesser extent rules that determined if a triumph was granted. Precedents were used to decline triumphs, but were not always the decisive factor and could indeed be overlooked if political pressure and support was to be found. The key to the developments in the Late Republic can be seen in the extraordinary story of Marius, the first real dynast of the period. His career was significant in the transformation of the Roman state and the development from Republic to Empire.

Marius and a transformation of the triumph non possum fidei causa imagines neque triumphos aut consulatus maiorum meorum ostentare, at, si res postulet, hastas, vexillum, phaleras, alia militaria dona, praeterea cicatrices advorso corpore. hae sunt meae imagines, haec nobilitas, non hereditate relicta, ut illa illis, sed quae ego meis plurumis laboribus et periculis quaesivi. (‘I cannot, to justify your confidence, display family portraits or the triumphs and consulships of my forefathers; but if occasion requires, I can show spears, a

74

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War banner, trappings and other military prizes, as well as scars on my breast. These are my portraits, these my patent of nobility, not left me by inheritance as theirs were, but won by my own innumerable efforts and perils’) [Sall., Iug. 85.29-30; cf. Val. Max. 6.9.14].

Sallust’s version of the speech of Marius as consul in 107 includes the above reference to triumphs: as a new man (cf. Iug. 73.7) Marius cannot boast of famous ancestors, only military experience; he cannot rely on them for elections, only on his own virtus.18 The speech is deliberately contrasting the nobiles with Marius (cf. 85.25), at the same time responding to those who suggested that he was unsuited for office.19 Triumphs were a powerful weapon in Roman politics.20 Having won the consular election of 107, Marius was assigned Numidia by plebiscite – he, i.e. a tribune on his behalf, was behind the vote taking place – even though the Senate had already renewed Caecilius Metellus in his African command (Sall., Iug. 73.7; 82.2). Metellus was recalled and given a triumph in 106 and the title ‘Numidicus’.21 The triumph of Metellus was no doubt meant to counter Marius’ command, implying that the war had (almost) already been concluded, and also served as a consolation for being in effect stripped of his command.22 However, the ultimate proof of the ending of the war and pacification of the enemy territory was Marius’ capturing of the enemy leader. Velleius Paterculus writes (2.12.1): designatusque iterum consul in urbem reversus secondi consulatus initio Kal. Ianuariis eum in triumpho duxit. (‘He returned to the city as consul designate for the second time, and on the kalends of January, at the inauguration of his second consulship, he led Jugurtha in triumph’).23

A further relevant point here is the levying of troops in the war against Jugurtha: Marius accepted volunteers without asking for property qualifications.24 This is hardly the place to open discussions on these matters, only to highlight one issue: after the war in Africa and the Germanic war, soldiers discharged hoped to be rewarded with a farm, in addition to the booty gained from war itself. The Roman soldier thus became more dependent on his commander, something that would change Roman warfare, politics, and thus the triumph itself.25 In the case of the triumph over Jugurtha, Marius was, according to Sallust, elected consul in absentia (Iug. 114.3), whilst still holding his African imperium. But this does not seem to have been a problem for Marius at the time.26 Marius waited outside the pomerium and then entered the city in triumph, in the

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

75

traditional manner. However, after his sacrifice on the Capitoline he went to the Senate meeting in triumphal dress – an unprecedented act. The senators took offence and in the end he was forced to change.27 Plutarch suggests two possible reasons for his behaviour: absent-­mindedness or a vulgar display of good fortune.28 The elogium of Marius on the Forum Augustum also records that he entered the Senate in his triumphalis vestis, which may suggest that this was an honour.29 Whatever the case, this was something new. Plutarch furthermore suggests that Marius summoned the Senate on the Capitoline, thus implying that it was intentional (Mar. 12.5). It also appears that Marius ignored some of the traditional rituals of the new consul. The consul would usually dress in toga praetexta in his house, followed by a salutatio, also in his house. A procession would follow, progressing towards the Capitoline, probably using the Via Sacra from the Forum and thus taking the same route as a victorious commander in triumph. On the Capitoline the consul made offerings to Jupiter, again as in the triumph.30 A triumphator would have redeemed the undertaking in accordance with his vow on the Capitoline: he would have dedicated the laurel wreath from the fasces on the Capitoline and would no longer have been entitled to wear the insignia triumphalia (under Augustus the paludamentum became one of the symbols of the role of the princeps). It appears that Marius attempted to merge the two ceremonies, which in this case both occurred on the same day, in the Temple of Jupiter. He may well have made this unprecedented statement in response to doubts over the validity of his achievement. Marius now received Gaul as a province and the hopes and welfare of the state rested in his hands (Iug. 114.4). Livy cites military necessity due to the threat of the Cimbri, and claims that the consulship of Marius was renewed for several years while he was away (Livy, Per. 67). The willingness to break traditions is thus already apparent. But it is even clearer in the triumph of Marius in 101. Having defeated the Cimbri, Marius was ordered back to Rome and awarded a triumph by the Senate. However, he instead chose to return to the war, helping Lutatius Catulus against the Teutones, only later returning to Rome to celebrate his triumph over both the Teutones and the Cimbri (Degrassi 1947: 562). These wars were referred to as either bellum Cimbricum or bellum Cimbricum et Teutonicum, but never just bellum Teutonicum.31 The victory over the Cimbri was the more important (most evidence cites it as bellum Cimbricum), but in the end the triumph became a joint celebration. Plutarch mentions the refusal of Marius, clearly implying that the triumph was an honour given to him as opposed to something he requested (Mar. 24.1). Plutarch suggests that Marius’ concern was

76

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

for his soldiers, who were still fighting the war and thus would be deprived of the victory celebrations. Once more, military necessity seems to have been a key factor for the decision, namely the threat of invasion. This may have been part of an ongoing discussion about the ending of wars.32 Returning to Rome, the joint triumph of Catulus and Marius is a fascinating piece of triumphal history due to the disagreement between the two victorious commanders.33 According to Plutarch (Mar. 27) Marius’ men took valuables from the battlefield, but the standards and trumpets were taken to the camp of Catulus, suggesting that he, not Marius had won the battle. This is highly revealing for the question of how one accounted for victories. Disputes arose amongst the respective soldiers of the two commanders. Finally arbitrators were taken to the battlefield and shown bodies, which again suggested that the victory belonged to Catulus. However, due to his earlier victories and the dignity of rank (Marius was a consul, Catulus a proconsul) Marius was given the victory. In the end he decided to share the triumph with Catulus, in part because Catulus was ready to use force if he was not given his share in victory (contra Val. Max. 9.12.4, who states that the Senate gave Catulus a share in the triumph). After his victory over the Teutones and the Cimbri, Marius received numerous honours including five days of thanksgiving.34 He was also honoured with a libation, spontaneously, not by senatorial decree, as an expression of the popular belief that he had saved Rome from the Gauls.35 Likewise Octavian later saved Rome from grave dangers and subsequently at all public and private banquets a libation was to be poured to him.36 Marius was consul seven times, surpassing all before him, including being re-­elected to the consulship in four succeeding years after 104. He began and succeeded in his political career due to his military successes.37 We may accept, with Hölkeskamp,38 that the careers of prominent commanders of the Second and Third Samnite War and especially the Second Punic War were extraordinary, and perhaps even in some sense irregular, while the careers of the most prominent figures in the last century of the Republic were highly irregular and contrary to the rules, with Marius as such a notorious example.39 Or we could begin with Marius, emphasizing that later politicians emulated and exceeded a dangerous precedent set by Marius.40 In either interpretation, Marius began a process which is central to our understanding of the triumphal development during the Late Republic – in his case the crisis was caused by a foreign war, but the consequences would have considerable implications for the crisis of the Late Republic. This becomes apparent when we consider triumphs presented to victorious commanders in absentia.

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

77

Triumph in absentia Traditionally the Senate met outside the pomerium to hear the victorious commander’s report and decide upon his request for a triumph. However, as we shall see this convention gradually came under pressure during the Late Republic and in the end developed into the honour-­system of the Principate. Marius, as already mentioned, was ordered back to Rome after having defeated the Cimbri and awarded a triumph. He instead decided to return to the war against the Teutones, and only later returned to Rome to celebrate a triumph (Degrassi 1947: 562). This (Plut, Mar. 24.1) suggests that the triumph was an honour given to him and thus most likely voted in absentia, as opposed to something he requested at a Senate meeting in Rome, as implied by the reasoning for his refusal: the soldiers still being in the north, and the dire situation, which was already posing a threat. He probably returned to Rome, even though the situation was dismal, after being summoned, in order to decline a triumph, voted to him already in his absence due to his great military success. Valerius Maximus has a puzzling insistence at 2.8.3 (based on an otherwise unknown and perhaps apocryphal anecdote) that it was an offence to decline a triumph. Of course, this is contradicted by Augustus’ frequent refusals of triumphs (RG 4.1).41 Some scholars assume that Marius only postponed his triumph,42 but then he would most probably have celebrated two triumphs later, not two-­in-one as he did. The Fasti Triumphales entry is lost, but that he celebrated only a single triumph is clear in the elogium of Marius from the Forum Augustum (see below).43 This implies refusal of the triumph given in absentia in the first place, but in the end he nevertheless celebrated the Cimbri victory together with the victory over the Teutones. The honour given to Marius by the Senate before his actual arrival at Rome is a major turning point in triumphal history. A triumph in absentia was awarded to the same person who had been elected to the consulate in absentia. The precedent of triumphs voted in absence would be repeated to honour the dynasts. In 61 Pompeius celebrated his famous third triumph (Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566). When he landed in Brundisium in 62 he surprisingly choose to disband his army immediately, in contrast to 81, 77 and 71.44 There would be no chance to talk of a possible civil war threat this time. According to Vervaet, Dio Cassius indicates that Pompeius had already accepted the triumph voted to him in 63. Whether the Senate acted out of fear, they had voted Pompeius a triumph in absentia.45 It is also possible, however, that this comment reflects annalistic structure: throughout his Late Republican narrative Dio Cassius runs major campaign narratives beyond

78

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

actual years to maintain narrative flow. Thus here he opens his account of 63 with an account of the final phase of Pompeius’ eastern command (37.11-23), which he carries on to the return and triumph, before returning to domestic events of 63 at 37.24.1, signalling as he does so that he has returned to strict chronology (‘these events took place over time [ana khronon] . . .’). After recounting Pompeius’ triumph (37.21.1-2), he then goes on to discuss honours for Pompeius and Pompeius’ attitude to them, both those conferred in his absence and after his return (37.21.3-23.4). It is thus not certain that 37.21.1 implies that the triumph had been decreed to Pompeius before his return. Dio Cassius’s view may be that Pompeius dismissed his troops before any related decree had been passed and without considering the implication for his triumph – that this should have made it impossible for him to triumph – but he nonetheless accepted the triumph when voted. Dio Cassius’s concern in respect of the triumph is what he deems to be the breach of convention of triumphing without troops, although this was in fact nothing new, since such triumphs had been held since 200 (see Chapter 2). This unprecedented third triumph was celebrated ex iure imperii extraordinarii. In 48 the Senate voted a triumph to Caesar over Juba and the Romans fighting with him, before the war had even begun (Dio Cass. 42.20.1-5) and then, after the victory, forty days’ supplicationes.46 According to Dio Cassius (43.14.2-3), Caesar returned to Rome where he celebrated his achievements and the honours given to him by the Senate before his return, including a triumph, in a chariot drawn by white horses and accompanied by all his lictors.47 We may safely assume that most of Caesar’s triumphs were voted to him by the Senate as soon as informed of his victories, and before he returned. The vote before the war may have been in compensation for the difficulty in celebrating Pharsalus, as this was an exclusively civil war. The justification in 48 appears to have been that they were enemies and not citizens, collaborating with foreign powers. His final triumph, however, presents a more extreme example, as it celebrated his defeat of Pompeius’ sons at Munda in 45, and thus was over only civil adversaries.48 Yet in terms of the triumph as an honour voted in absence, the 46 triumph was also in breach of convention, although not tradition due to the precedent of Marius.49 Dio Cassius refers to excessive honours (42.19), equalling his description in 44.3, describing honours given without prior victory: at 44.3 we hear of the right to wear triumphal dress and the right to offer spolia opima, as if Caesar had slain an enemy commander. These honours were given to Caesar without prior victories.50 In the Philippics (13.7-9) Cicero mentions the decision of the Senate in 44 to honour Lepidus with a triumph ex Hisp. (13.9) (see also below). He clearly states

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

79

that it was decreed in absentia, without apparent difficulties.51 After Mutina the same pattern appeared again: a triumph was voted to Decimus Brutus, given in absentia, but was never celebrated, as he was killed before he returned to Rome.52 Octavian’s triumphs and ovations were also probably voted to him by the Senate before he returned, on learning of his successes. This is the case for the war against Sextus Pompeius in 36 (Dio Cass. 49.15.1; App., B Civ. 5.130) and the Actian and Alexandrian triumphs.53 Even as late as 27 M. Licinius Crassus seems to have been voted a triumph in absentia.54 The returns of victorious generals such as Caesar and Octavian constitute a major change to the known pattern of triumphal returns, as they did not involve a meeting with the Senate outside the pomerium. This development, it would seem, dates to Marius. It was part of an honour-­system that developed over time: Augustus, followed by later Emperors, did not necessarily decide which honours he wanted, but he could and had to accept some and decline others.55

Competition and conventions: triumph-­hunting A related development that emerged from the competitiveness of the Late Republican political culture was the lengths to which some commanders would go to secure a triumph.56 Some were even willing to find alternatives: as mentioned in Chapters 2 and 3, during the period from 231 (Papirius Maso: Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 549) and down to 172 (Cicereius: Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 556) at least four commanders decided to celebrate a triumph outside the city of Rome (the Alban Mount triumph). Technically a commander could stage a triumph if he wished, due to his imperium, but in practice he requested permission.57 Otherwise he triumphed without the official backing of the res publica.58 Similarly, Antonius may have celebrated a triumph in 34 over the Armenian king Artavasdes in Alexandria.59 Monuments were also part of this quest to legitimize the victorious commanders and their triumphs by commemorating their achievements through a visual reminder of their victories (most famously Augustus in Res Gestae 19–21 provides a list of triumphal monuments, many of them connected to or associated with the triple triumph of 29 and the ending of the civil war). The triumph and associated monuments were designed to shape perceptions of the war they celebrated. Marius thus set up monument(s) on the Capitoline.60 The erection of public monuments in the city of Rome was intensely competitive: they were destroyed by Sulla as part of his attack on the legacy of Marius, but

80

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

later restored by Caesar.61 Plutarch records a quarrel between Marius and Sulla regarding an equestrian monument with Statues of Victory bearing spoils put up in Rome on the Capitoline by Bocchus, king of Mauretania. The monument gave Sulla the credit for the surrender of Jugurtha, while ignoring Marius.62 The triumph was granted to Marius, but Bocchus’ monument and Sulla’s destruction of Marius’ triumphal monuments also created the impression that Sulla should have received the triumph over Jugurtha, not Marius. According to Plutarch, Marius then tried to demolish the monument. Perhaps it was later rebuilt by Sulla.63 In the end the war of the Socii ended this little quarrel, at least for a while. Both Velleius Paterculus and Suetonius use the word restituere, but even if we accept the critical line of Evans (1994: 4), dismissing restorations and suggesting instead that this was a copy only, this appears similar to the case of Cn. Duilius. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the elogium from one of his monuments in Rome, recording his military exploits in detail, is in archaic language but the inscription is of imperial date.64 The surviving inscription is made of Luna marble, whereas the original would have been in tufa. It seems probable that the ‘original’ inscription was re-­cut or restored under Augustus.65 The elogium of Marius on the Forum Augustum may not have been a direct copy of a Capitoline inscription (Plut., Caes. 6), and might have coupled the information from this inscription with anecdotal information taken from other sources. The competitive society of Rome also produced another peculiarity: some commanders gained triumphs for achievements that did not really warrant one at all. In 74 Servilius Isauricus triumphed over pirates, even though, according to our evidence, his campaign was rather unsuccessful.66 Cicero (In Pis. 58, context 56–58) mentions Servilius, contrasting him and others to Pompeius: ‘What can have been your motive in bringing a formidable war to its conclusion, and showing such eagerness to have that laurel wreath decreed to you by the senate?’ (quid est quod confecto per te formidolosissimo bello coronam illam lauream tibi tanto opere decerni volueris a senatu?). Cicero is of course being polemic, but it is not difficult to accept his view that not all triumphs warranted such celebration. Perhaps the best examples from the Late Republic are the wars against Mithridates. They, somewhat surprisingly, warranted no less than four triumphs from 81 to 61.67 In a speech by Cicero delivered in 66 in support of the proposal made by Gaius Manilius, a tribune of the people, that Pompeius be given sole command against Mithridates, he focuses on this very point (Leg. Man. 3.8): etenim adhuc ita nostri cum illo rege contenderunt imperatores, ut ab illo insignia victoriae, non victoriam reportarent. Triumphavit L. Sulla, triumphavit L. Murena

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

81

de Mithridate, duo fortissimi viri et summi imperatores, sed ita triumpharunt, ut ille pulsus superatusque regnaret. verum tamen illis imperatoribus laus est tribuenda, quod egerunt, venia danda, quod reliquerunt, propterea quod ab eo bello Sullam in Italiam res publica, Murenam Sulla revocavit. (‘For hitherto our generals have maintained the conflict with the monarch in such a way as to bring home the trappings of victory over him, not victory itself. One triumph over Mithridates was celebrated by Lucius Sulla and another triumph by Lucius Murena, brave men and great generals both, but their triumphs left Mithridates beaten and conquered – yet still on the throne! None the less those generals deserve praise for what they did, pardon for what they left undone, since both were recalled to Italy from the war, Sulla by a crisis at home and Murena by Sulla’).

Two men had celebrated triumphs against Mithridates, who nevertheless was still on the throne: Sulla in 81 (Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 563) and Licinius Murena over the same enemy and celebrated during the same year (Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 563). Murena’s triumph seems particularly undeserved as he ended the campaign losing a battle to Mithridates.68 Having said that, Murena was acclaimed as imperator in the process of this campaign.69 His triumph was probably awarded by the dynast Sulla, foreshadowing the later practice of the triumvirs: a triumph for a subordinate commander. When Licinius Lucullus later returned to Rome without ending his war against the king (Vell. Pat. 2.33.1), he had to use his political influence in order to receive a triumph, but not before, according to Cicero, he had endured three years of waiting at the gates of Rome. He finally entered in triumph in the consulship of Cicero.70 The triumph was thus not granted at first, but Lucullus refused to accept this and after three years apparently acquired what he wanted (Plut., Luc. 37). In the end it was Pompeius who defeated Mithridates (triumph, Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566), having taken over Lucullus’ command by popular vote, as Marius had done before.71 Even if the Senate did ask Magnus to intervene, the precipitate haste with which he moved strongly suggests an attempt – once again – to steal another’s laurels.72 The ‘sense of an ending’ implicit in the ritual of the triumph was stretched in the case of Mithridates.73 However, precedents could be found: in the Middle Republic it was not uncommon for a victory and triumph not to bring an end to the war, such as in the Samnite Wars and the First Punic War. The war aim of defeating Mithridates completely was a difficult one; and the result was four triumphs. Later Caesar triumphed over Pharnaces of Pontus. According to Plutarch (Caes. 50.2; Mor, 206E) and Appian (B Civ. 2.91), in 47, having defeated Pharnaces

82

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

at Zela, Caesar wrote ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’ in a letter to Rome. Plutarch claims he wrote it to a friend, while Appian states that he wrote the words to Rome, thus also suggesting a letter from the battlefield. Suetonius however tells us that veni vidi vici was proclaimed in Rome in 46 (Iul. 37.2): Pontico triumpho inter pompae fercula trium verborum praetulit titulum VENI VIDI VICI non acta belli significantem sicut ceteris, sed celeriter confecti notam (‘In his Pontic triumph he displayed among the show-­pieces of the procession a placard [titulus] of but three words, “I came, I saw, I conquered”, not indicating the events of the war, as the others did, but the speed with which it was finished’).74 Might it not be possible that the letter was addressed to the Senate, which need not exclude a friend? Moreover it could also have been used in the triumphal procession.75 It was clearly a slogan and as such ideal for both a letter to the Senate and the triumphal procession. It appears to be clear that this was indeed part of the laurelled letter sent to the Senate to claim a triumph. It may resemble Octavian’s use of the phrase pace parta terra marique.76 Thus laurelled letters as well as inscriptions, monuments and so forth, helped to commemorate the victory, and maximize political gain. Östenberg (2013: 823) interestingly suggests that veni vidi vici may also refer to Caesar’s rapid takeover of Italy in the civil war. One may add that he somewhat fittingly echoed Sulla’s triumph over Mithridates, in which Sulla could not resist trying to integrate civil war into the Republican triumphal procession, even if the triumph itself was clearly not over a civil enemy. Like Marius before him, Pompeius took the war ritual to its limits:77 Pompeius’ African triumph (Degrassi 1947: 564), for which the date is uncertain, followed the suppression of the Marian opposition led by Domitius Ahenobarbus.78 Having returned to Rome Pompeius insisted on triumphing against the wishes of Sulla. Sulla is said to have based his objection on Pompeius’ commanding as a privatus – indeed, he was not even a senator.79 After his Spanish campaign Pompeius wanted both a triumph (71 BCE: Degrassi 1947: 565) and the right to stand for the consulship of 70, which caused opposition in the Senate. In the end threats won the day and Pompeius achieved his aims, even though he had held neither praetorship nor questorship and was only thirty-­four years of age.80 In 62 Caecilius Metellus Creticus triumphed over Crete (Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566) but according to Velleius Paterculus (2.40.5: quippe ornamentum triumphi eius captivos duces Pompeius subduxerat (‘indeed he had just cause for complaint in that Pompeius had robbed him of the captive generals who were to have adorned his triumph’)).81 Pompeius sought to claim a share in his triumph, as he commanded the sea and inland territories, even though Metellus put an end to

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

83

the Cretan war. The flexibility of triumphal conventions, working as they did through precedent (Livy 38.50.1-3) meant that they often reflect back on a competitive society and Realpolitik. Victories in war were central in the establishment of commanders’ pre-­eminence in Roman politics (‘triumphal rulership’). However, this gradually changed during the Late Republic, in response to the fact that many wars during this period were civil.82

Civil war 44–43 BCE There is debate as to whether two incidents in 44–43, the arrangements with Sextus Pompeius in order to avoid further civil war and the full-­blown civil war at Mutina, are still part of what one might reasonably call Republican history.83 There is no doubt that the honour-­system was changing, but this was a process which dated to the time of Marius at least. Most surprising, perhaps, is the involvement of the Senate in this development (contra Antonius, Lepidus and Octavian, as well as the murderers of Caesar). We must again begin with Marius: during the period from 87 to 82, Sulla and his adversaries fought Rome’s first civil war. In 88 Sulla had Marius and others declared public enemies (hostes).84 The leading opponents of Sulla could thus be killed with impunity (App., B Civ. 1.60). The heads of those executed were displayed in the Forum Romanum and the bodies thrown into the Tiber.85 Marius’ body was even exhumed and the remains scattered by Sulla.86 This aspect of Sulla’s rule was of great relevance to the development of the Late Republican triumph, as it created a possible justification for civil war. Sulla’s march on Rome was also important as a turning point, even if there was no triumph, as other protagonists in civil wars would later emulate this – most famously Octavian.87 This becomes highly apparent during 44–43. Here we need to question the normativity of a concept of peace that has only acquired its normalness in the modern age. Peace was never the norm in Roman society, where warfare was essential, and in the case of the Late Republic, civil discord and civil war was normal. In fact it would seem that the justifications for war were partly transformed into justifications for civil war.

M.  Aemilius Lepidus Cicero (Phil. 5.40-1) mentions a proposal he made to honour Lepidus because he had avoided civil war with Sextus Pompeius (in 44), the last of Pompeius’ sons in Spain.88 Dio Cassius (45.10.6) agrees and claims that Sextus Pompeius had even

84

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

received back his fathers’ estate in Spain. Lepidus was awarded a supplicatio for these negotiations.89 This was proposed by Antonius and Cicero’s presentation in the Philippics seems to suggest that it was decreed.90 Surprisingly, Cicero maintains that supplicationes had never been requested or decreed for civil war victories.91 However, his own supplicatio (for the conspiracy of Catilina) suggests that relief from a civil threat was certainly a possible reason.92 Amidst the civil war, foreign wars appear to have faded into the background and the Senate attempted to appease Lepidus by decreeing him honours.93 Cicero (Phil. 5.41, also mentioning a gilt equestrian statue) clearly suggests that these motions were meant to keep Lepidus on the side of the ‘Republicans’, seeking with such measures to conciliate him. He (Phil. 13.7-9) recalls further honours given to Lepidus such as an equestrian statue and a triumph (9): haec causa fuit cur decerneretis statuam in rostris cum inscriptione praeclara, cur absenti triumphum. quamquam enim magnas res bellicas gesserat et triumpho dignas, non erat tamen ei tribuendum, quod nec L. Aemilio nec Aemiliano Scipioni nec superiori Africano nec Mario nec Pompeio, qui maiora bella gesserunt; sed quod silentio bellum civile confecerat, cum primum licuit, honores in eum maximos contulistis. (‘This was the reason why you voted him a statue on the Rostra with a splendid inscription and a triumph in absentia. He had indeed achieved important military successes worthy of a triumph, but that did not warrant our granting to him what was not granted to Lucius Aemilius or to Aemilianus Scipio or to the elder Africanus or to Marius or to Pompeius, men who conducted greater wars. But because he had brought a civil war to a conclusion without an uproar, you conferred the greatest honours upon him at the first opportunity’).

Lepidus’ triumph of 43 may have been in part for victories in Spain.94 The question of triumph in absentia is also relevant here. The honour conferred on Lepidus, but not on Paullus, the Scipios, Marius (an error by Cicero I believe) and Pompeius, is surely having his triumph decreed in absentia: all these others had to wait in the usual way until their return for the decree. We thus know that following the agreement with Sextus Pompeius the Senate decreed Lepidus a thanksgiving (28 Nov 44: Cic., Phil. 3.20-4) and a gilt equestrian statue (Phil. 5.41). This passage seems to imply that they also voted him a triumph in absence as a further honour: the triumph was in principle for his military successes, but the fact it was decreed in advance was a further honour for successful negotiations with Sextus Pompeius. The Fasti Triumphales and the Fasti Barberiniani both suggest that the triumph was won ex Hispania (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567; 342–3 (Fasti Barb.):

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

85

M. Aimilius M. f. Q. n. Lepidus II, IIIvir r(ei) p(ublicae) [c(onstituendae)], pro co(n)s(ule) ex Hispania pridie k. [Ian. a. DCCX] Fasti Barb.: M. Aemilius Lepidus iterum ex Hispania prid. k. Ian. [tr]iumphavit, palmam de[dit].

There might after all have been more to it than ex Hispania: Caesar’s Spanish triumph in 45 unequivocally broke the taboo on civil war triumphs. As mentioned, his final triumph after Munda was only over civil opponents.95 But Caesar’s triumph was no doubt recorded as simply ex Hispania (although we lack the Fasti Triumphales entry), mainly because a commander usually could not expect to triumph after an exclusively civil war.96 Significantly, the victoria civilis aspect of the triumphs was rarely denied: even if the Fasti Triumphales labelled the Munda victory as ex Hisp., there were no foreign enemies. It was convenient, perhaps, that the war was fought in Spain. The foreign aspect, however absurd, was crucial in the justification, even if the civil war was there for all to see. One possible reading of Cicero, again as a means of justification, may be that there was a great difference between avoiding a civil war and fighting one. Initiating civil war was inexcusable, fighting one certainly not so. Caesar’s justification was the rei publicae causa (‘for the sake of the commonwealth’).97 The war at Actium was represented as a foreign war, as the spear rite of the fetiales in 32 shows.98 This way Octavian successfully avoided starting a new civil war. But there were Romans helping Cleopatra and these citizen-­enemies automatically became hostes when taking up arms against the res publica, thus turning a foreign war into a civil war.99 These semantic confusions played an important role in the justifying of Rome’s new wars – civil wars. In Brundisium in 40 Antonius and Octavian avoided a civil war and as a result both triumvirs were given an ovation (two similar entries): Imp. Caesar Divi f. C. f. IIIvir r(ei) p(ublicae) c(onstituendae) ov[ans, an. DCCXIII] quod pacem cum M. Antonio fecit, [–––] [Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568; cf. 342–3, Fasti Barberiniani].

There was no enemy and the ovations were given for the very act of avoiding civil war. This was peace through diplomatic concord, as opposed to civil war, as was Lepidus’ settlement with Sextus Pompeius. There was, however, one major difference: Lepidus received a triumph, not an ovation.100 Caesar’s ovation in 44 provides a precedent for an ovation without a preceding war, or indeed an enemy.101 The fact that Sextus Pompeius did not receive a triumph, jointly with Lepidus, may mean one of two things: either he was still in principle

86

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

perceived as the tolerated (former) enemy, or, alternatively, Lepidus received a triumph only after victories against the Spanish. But the question arises as to what Spanish victories they might be. Perhaps Cicero was trying to avoid the trouble of having to justify a blatant civil war triumph, by referring to numerous Spanish victories (as does the Fasti Triumphales). Or alternatively, our evidence may just be focusing on the most important matter at hand – namely civil war. Whatever the answer, Sextus Pompeius was not voted a thanksgiving.102 Velleius Paterculus (2.67.4) tells the story that at the triumph of Lepidus and that of Munatius Plancus, proconsul in Transalpine Gaul,103 the soldiers shouted that it was over Germans not Gauls, the Latin word germanus meaning brother.104 This was not because the triumphs were necessarily granted after civil wars, but because both men had actively put close family members on the proscription list (both having their brothers included: App., B Civ. 4.12). Appian claims that Lepidus had warned that non-­attendance at his triumph would result in being proscribed (B Civ. 4.31: the first proscription list was from the 28 November, the triumph on the 31 December 43). It is thus safe to say that our evidence connects the Spanish triumph of Lepidus and the civil war, and Sumi is right to note this blurring in 43 (Sumi 2005: 191). Nevertheless, it should be remembered that there is a difference in chronology between the supplicatio, the granting of the triumph, and the actual procession in Rome, more than a year later.105 During this period Lepidus went from proconsul with a consular imperium to being one of the triumvirs (triumviri rei publicae constituendae). After having successfully avoided a civil war with Sextus Pompeius, and after Antonius’ politics of reconciliation after the murder of Caesar, Rome was now closing in on yet another civil war.

Mutina In 44 the consul Antonius wanted to exchange his appointed province of Macedonia with that of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, so that he could be closer to Rome. Decimus Brutus, the elected pro-­magistrate, however, reasonably refused Antonius’ claim to his province. At the same time Octavian was illegally raising an army of Caesar’s veterans. Golden (2013: esp. 195–6) refers to this as open hostilities – civil war – as well as a political crisis. There is little reason to disagree. In 43 a decision was thus taken to send the consuls together with Octavian to Mutina, in order to lift the siege on Mutina. Cicero sums up the situation (Phil. 5.26):

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

87

minimis momentis, patres conscripti, maximae inclinationes temporum fiunt, cum in omni casu rei publicae tum in bello et maxime civili, quod opinione plerumque et fama gubernatur. nemo quaeret, quibus cum mandatis legatos miserimus: nomen ipsum legationis ultro missae timoris esse signum videbitur. recedat a Mutina, desinat oppugnare Brutum, decedat ex Gallia; non est verbis rogandus, cogendus est armis. (‘Very small impulses, Members of the Senate, sometimes change situations dramatically: it happens not only in every crisis of the res publica, but particularly in war, and above all civil war, which is apt to be ruled by public opinion (opinio) and report (fama). Nobody will ask what commission we have given the envoys to deliver: the very notion of an embassy dispatched of our own volition will be taken as a sign of fear. Let Antonius retire from Mutina, let him cease attacking Brutus, let him withdraw from Gaul; he is not to be asked in words, he is to be compelled by force of arms’).

For Cicero there was little room for compromise and the demands are clear: Antonius was to retire from Mutina, stop attacking Decimus Brutus and withdraw from Gaul. As Cicero hoped, the situation was indeed resolved, more or less, by military conflict (armis). At Mutina, the battle of Forum Gallorum took place on the 14 April (Cic., Fam. 10.30). Seven days later, the second battle of Mutina was fought. According to Appian (B Civ. 3.72) the second battle was not entirely conclusive, but Antonius decided to withdraw towards Gallia Narbonensis (on the 22 April) as he thought Octavian’s forces would break into Mutina. After the battle Decimus Brutus was singled out as the main victor and awarded a triumph by the Senate. During the summer the Senate addressed the soldiers of Octavian without consulting him first.106 In August Octavian marched on Rome and demanded the consulship, although not eligible. He was chosen consul on the 19 August.107 Decimus Brutus, now on the run, was captured and killed by Antonius’ men before he could celebrate his triumph. In the Res Gestae (1.1) the raising of an illegal army and even the bold move for the consulship is presented as a necessity in order to counterbalance the power of Antonius: rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam.108 This created a rather absurd situation in Rome: during the descent into civil war the government often became little more than a faction in the war, with each of the participants claiming legitimacy. Certainly politicians on both sides of a political debate repeated a commonly shared notion that they fought for the Republic. Thus Cicero, in Philippics 14, defended the legitimacy of the imperatorial acclamations of Aulus Hirtius, Vibius Pansa Caetronianus, and Octavian. This speech was delivered on the 21 April 43 in support of a proposal to recognize the

88

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

three commanders’ acclamations and to decree supplicationes, raising the latter to fifty days.109 Cicero, who since January had been seeking to have Antonius declared a hostis,110 argues that decreeing supplicationes would imply that Antonius was a hostis and thus make the acclamations as imperator legitimate. In sections 22–24 he maintains that thanksgivings and imperatorial acclamations had not occurred in earlier civil wars. The importance of judging Antonius as an enemy of Rome is already set out in the fourth Philippic, delivered as a contio on the 20 December 44.111 Cicero explains (4.1): nam est hostis a senatu nondum verbo appellatus, sed re iam iudicatus Antonious. (‘For Antonius had been pronounced a public enemy by the senate – in actuality, though not yet in words’).

In Phil. 6.6 (cf. 4) the Senate’s order to Antonius not to attack Mutina is even compared with that to Hannibal not to attack Saguntum. Antonius will not, as Hannibal, accept the senatorial conditions, and thus there is no point in sending legates to him. Again, as a means of legitimization, Antonius is described as a public enemy.112 In the end Antonius and his followers were indeed declared public enemies, and a triumph was voted to Decimus Brutus.113 The justification was thus that, since they were enemies not citizens, it was permissible to triumph over them. Crucially, Antonius was declared a public enemy after the battle on the 26 April.114 Decimus Brutus never returned to Rome and thus never celebrated his triumph, and as a result no triumph was recorded on the Fasti Triumphales. Importantly, Havener (2014: esp. 166; cf. Havener 2015) rightly points out that there was no prolonged debate about the triumph of Decimus Brutus. None of our evidence suggests that this triumph was a problem due to the fact that it followed a civil war. Velleius Paterculus (2.62.4-5) and Livy (Per. 119) both criticize the decision, but only because Octavian did not also receive one. Surprisingly, Cicero (Ad Brut. 1.15.9) only demanded an ovation for Octavian. However, other sources show that this proposal cannot have led to a senatorial decree, since all agree that there was no honorific mention of Octavian.115 Appian speaks later of Octavian unsuccessfully requesting a triumph (B Civ. 3.80, 82, 89). In the list of honours after Mutina, Octavian clearly received less than he had wanted. As a result he may even have declined the ovation, which was certainly never celebrated, as can be deduced from RG 4.1 ([bis] ovans triumphavi),116 mentioning two ovations, and the triumphal Fasti.117 The answer as to why the Senate decided as it did may be found in Cicero: the elite in Rome thought the war was over (Fam. 11.12; 11.10.3). Decimus Brutus may at the same

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

89

time have overestimated the extent of his victory.118 In effect the Senate’s decision to offer a triumph for Decimus Brutus went far beyond the Munda precedent, since the triumph was to be celebrated not ex Hispania, but over Italy itself. One can only imagine what the Fasti Triumphales entry would have read: ex Italia, or perhaps it would still have been ex Gallia, even though the status of Gallia Cisalpina had changed. There certainly was no foreign enemy at hand. Even so, this was perhaps the first time where such an exclusively civil war triumph had been directly – politically – justified by a hostis declaration. The case of Caesar was quite different: a Senate decree of 48 had authorized Caesar to fight the Pompeians in Africa and to be arbiter of war and peace (Dio Cass. 42.20.1). The justification seems to have been that, since they were collaborating as it were with foreign powers, he was within his rights to fight them. The Senate also carried Caesarian precedents further by voting fifty days’ supplicatio and Cicero proposed that Decimus Brutus be included in the Fasti (Ad Brut. 1.15.8). There is a difference between the triumph of Decimus Brutus after Mutina and Lepidus’ triumph, in that one was after an exclusively civil war, the other was after a Spanish triumph (ex Hisp.), although in reality perhaps mainly for the avoidance of civil war, thus similar to the joint ovation of Antonius and Octavian in 40. There is no room for exceptions in Valerius Maximus (2.8.7: no triumphs for civil war; see Chapter  5), and he is supported by Cicero it seems. Munda and Mutina were exclusively civil wars, but Mutina does not necessarily show that Cicero was wrong as such; it shows rather a semantic confusion (willingly or politically, or not) during the period. According to Havener (2014: 167, n. 12; Havener 2015) hostis is mainly a political catchword: when the res publica was under violent threat from the citizens themselves, this was countered by magistrates so that the state came to no harm.119 This is a reasonable point, but this is mainly about justification, whatever political realities lay behind. Whether it really made the war external is rather beside the point here – and in this case it certainly did not. Munda was no doubt recorded as simply ex Hispania, because it presented fewer problems for conceptualizing a civil war victory. And even if the Romans all knew that these wars were civil wars, civil war victories are as such not part of the Fasti Triumphales, only a civil war avoided (Lepidus 43 BCE; Antonius and Octavian 40). The Fasti Triumphales suggests normativity here: there were no triumphs after exclusively civil wars, although this perhaps only came to be because Decimus Brutus died before entering Rome in triumphal procession. The ‘what if ’ element is fascinating because it could have thrown out the entire notion of civil war triumphs. We may wonder how the Romans would have dealt with it.

90

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

The triumvirs did not follow these controversial precedents for holding triumphs for wars which were exclusively civil (hostis declarations or not) and there were no triumphs following Philippi and Perusia. This did not change with the sole rule of Augustus: the Actian and Alexandrian wars were waged ostensibly against the ruler of Egypt, and accordingly merited triumphs. In the end the enemy was omitted for Actium, and only a geographical reference was given. Two wars within two years against the same enemy would have appeared exaggerated, and thus Actium, the turning point of the war, was simply left without a named enemy (see Chapters 5 and 6). Roman citizens of course fought in these wars on the opposing side, and thus the wars were civil as well as external, yet this was something Octavian made no attempt to conceal. As a result of the presence of civil war in the Late Republic, the Romans were forced to consider how to conceptualize civil war victories in a world that also witnessed interstate war and the concept of ‘Just War’, which logically excluded civil war. Civil warfare had become part of the internal function of the Roman state and also a part of Rome’s perception of normality. How disrupted this period was, is perhaps best illustrated by the apparent lack of criticism of the Mutina triumph. Having said that, it is only with the 312 CE triumph of Constantine that we find a triumph equalling the Mutina triumph of Decimus Brutus: a civil war triumph celebrated over Italy itself.120

Conclusions C(aius) Marius C(ai) f(ilius) / co(n)s(ul) (septies), pr(aetor), tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), qu(aestor), aug(ur), tr(ibunus) mil(itum). extra / sortem bellum cum Iugurtha rege Numidiae / co(n)s(ul) gessit, eum cepit et triumphans in / secundo consulatu ante currum suum / duci iussit. tertium co(n)s(ul) absens creatus / est. (quartum) co(n)s(ul) Teutonorum exercitum / delevit. (quintum) co(n)s(ul) Cimbros fudit, ex iis et / Teutonis iterum triumph[avit]. Rem pub(licam) turbatam / seditionibus tr(ibuni) pl(ebis) et praetor(is), / qui armati Capitolium occupaverunt, (sextum) / co(n)s(ul) vindicavit. post (septuagesimum) annum patria per arma / civilia expulsus armis restitutus (septimum) / co(n)s(ul) factus est. de manubiis Cimbric(is) et Teuton(icis) / aedem Honori et Virtuti victor fecit. veste / triumphali calceis patriciis [. . .] [text: Geiger 2008: 154; CIL 6.8.3 40957 = 31598]. (‘Gaius Marius C.f., seven times consul, praetor, tribune of the plebs, quaestor, augur, military tribune, contrary to the rule governing provincial assignments, waged war as consul against Jugurtha, the king of Numidia, and captured him, and celebrating a triumph in his second consulship, ordered that the monarch be

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

91

led before his chariot. In his absence he was declared consul for a third time, and in his fourth consulship annihilated an army of the Teutones and in his fifth routed the Cimbri. He again celebrated a triumph [this time] over the Cimbri and the Teutones. In his sixth consulship he liberated the state when it had been thrown into chaos by the seditions of a tribune of the plebs and a praetor who had armed themselves and occupied the Capitoline hill. When he was aged more than seventy years he was expelled from his country through civil strife and was restored through force, and made consul for a seventh time. From the spoils of the Cimbri and the Teutones as victor he dedicated a shrine to Honour and Virtue. In triumphal robes and patrician shoes [he entered the Senate]’) [trans. Evans 1994].

According to Geiger (2008: 155) the inclusion of Marius alongside Sulla in the Forum of Augustus was meant to show that civil war was irrelevant under Augustus. What can be said is that there certainly is a tendency towards focusing on the ending of civil wars. While consul, Marius had killed the tribune Saturninus and the praetor Servilius after their murder of a consular candidate.121 The justification was that Marius had freed the res publica from an insurgence (rem publicam turbatam seditionibus . . . VI consul vindicavit (see above)), using a terminology presaging the words of justification used by Augustus in the Res Gestae on the war at Mutina against Antonius (1.1: rem publicam a dominatione factionis . . . vindicavi). Again, like the Res Gestae, the real surprise is that civil war is mentioned on the inscription, although they both focus on the positive outcome and ending of the civil wars.122 The Periochae of Livy reflects the ambiguous nature of Marius, albeit somewhat coloured by senatorial sentiments (80): adeo quam rem publicam armatus servavit, eam primo togatus omni genere fraudis, postremo armis hostiliter evertit. (‘So true is it that as a soldier he saved the state, and as a civilian first confounded that same state with all manner of trickery, and in the end made devastating war on it’).

The elogium of Marius and those of the other summi viri (Suet., Aug. 31.5) in the Forum Augustum reveals, as does the Fasti Triumphales, a society interested in and concerned with the past.123 At the centre of attention is Augustus in a quadriga, presented as the culmination of Roman history.124 The great majority of the summi viri were victorious commanders and their victories and triumphs are an essential part of their elogia. Indeed any deserving of triumphal honours received a bronze statue in the Forum of Augustus (Dio Cass. 55.10.3). Suetonius

92

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

adds that their statues presented them in triumphal costume (Aug. 31.5). Evans, who suggests that Marius entered the Senate in triumphal garb as an honour (Evans 1994: 81, n. 89), argues that an elogium does not usually contain anecdotal information (Evans 1994: 2–3).125 However, other elogia from the Forum of Augustus do include comparable anecdotal information: Aeneas, or so we are told, was not present at the war with Laurentum,126 Furius Camillus did not allow migration to Veii,127 and Fabius Maximus, who was a cautious commander (dux aetatis suae cautissimus et re[i] militaris peritissimus habitus est), did not win, but denied Hannibal several victories.128 The designation as a cautious commander is certainly interesting, being an appraisal of the man based on more than the factual information given; and is all the more conspicuous alongside the military victories of the other summi viri. Similarly, it does seem curious to mention that Marius waged war against Jugurtha contrary to the rule governing provincial assignments. Nevertheless, it was most opportune to highlight dependence upon the populus Romanus, whether for Marius’ command against Jugurtha or Augustus’ own powers in more recent times. The elogia on the Forum as well as the Fasti Triumphales support the scholarly consensus suggesting that the Augustan period was a turning point in the history of the Roman triumph. There is no need to deny that a tremendous change took place with Augustus. But the Late Republic also saw substantial change, even to the ritual of the triumph itself. The Senate’s criteria for a triumph had changed inasmuch as they increasingly acted as a forum for justification for the political dynasts of the period. And when the Senate acted on its own, as happened after Mutina, the result was in fact the most extreme infringement of triumphal law during the period: a triumph to Decimus Brutus after an exclusively civil war, fought in Italy itself. However, the triumvirs, as we shall see in Chapter 5, then retreated from this to follow the earlier tactic of presenting their civil wars as at least partly external conflicts – including the triple triumph of Octavian in 29. The triumph was later monopolized by the imperial family and as a consequence there were fewer actual triumphal processions.129 While this is undoubtedly true, there were other key developments during the Late Republic, and Marius and the continuous civil war were as much a turning point as was Augustus – whether we accept 29 or 19 as the turning point – who becomes merely the last, albeit the most successful, in a long line of Late Republican dynasts. There was a change in the monopolization of the triumph during the reign of Augustus, but the roots of this change must be sought in the previous seventy or so years, and the patronage of the great dynasts was as important as

The Late Republican Triumph: Continuity and Change

93

the granting of the triumphs by the Senate. Similarly, the granting of the triumph in absentia may go back to Marius. This becomes the norm from Caesar onwards, stretching further into the Principate. We must, therefore, trace the imperial triumph back to at least the time of Marius, and emphasize that later politicians emulated and exceeded the dangerous precedents he set. The triumph was, as ever, part of the rhetoric of political legitimation for the victor. This goes for Augustus, as well as for all the other victorious commanders. The main reason why there is so much focus on Augustus is the poor state of our evidence for the earlier period, with a substantial part of this material being Augustan, including the vital Fasti Triumphales. But even if this is not exclusively an archival document,130 but a historico-­antiquarian reconstruction, there is little reason to think that it is deliberately false. The tendency to approach Augustus, trying to reveal his deceptive ways, what we might term the right-­orwrong approach to history, is still immensely popular. However, the project should also involve us trying to understand what actually had happened in the past.131 The political competition in Rome during this period was extreme, whether we focus on the breaking of rules or the inherent flexibility of triumphal conventions, but we should not forget that this was hardly new. However, the main difference between the Late Republic and earlier triumphal history is the appearance of civil war. The civil war of the Late Republic no doubt changed the triumph: this process had certainly started with Marius and Sulla and thus one cannot overlook the last years of the Republic. Civil war was part of life in Late Republican Rome and as a result it became an integral part of the granting of triumphs. Perhaps the most extreme period was 44–43, when the triumph of Decimus Brutus at Mutina in particular stands out. But this quickly changed and the civil wars were accommodated into this prestigious war ritual, but only if the victories did, however loosely, include a foreign victory or enemy. The flexibility in the process of granting a triumph, visible in Livy 38.50.1-3, is typical of Roman political culture. However, it was abused during the Late Republic in as much as the continuous granting of honours, including the triumph and other triumphal honours, rendered the honour-­system all but obsolete. Nevertheless, the changes during the reign of Augustus to triumphal honours and triumph-­like celebrations were clearly the result of the Late Republican transformation of triumphal conventions. Octavian celebrated his triple triumph in 29: including two triumphs in a single war, both fought with the same purpose and against the same enemy. As I have suggested elsewhere (Lange 2009: esp. 79–90), Actium was also considered as both a foreign and a

94

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

civil war in the official ideology of the regime. After 29 Augustus declined all future triumphs in order to preserve the uniqueness of this triple triumph (RG 4.1). As a consequence triumph-­like honours became all the more important.132 The flexibility of triumphal conventions, as found during the Late Republic, thus continues during the age of Augustus. Imperial triumphs simply cannot and should not be isolated from the Late Republican transformation of the Roman triumph, and there is a distinct development from the Late Republic and the triumvirate to the Principate.

5

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic: Constructing the Enemy1 Recent research on the Roman triumph has tended to focus on questions of the rules and conventions that determined the awarding of a triumph. The key source on this topic is Livy, and thus much of the discussion has dealt mainly with the late third and early second centuries. One aspect which has received incidental comments is the convention that a triumph could not be won for a civil war.2 If one was nevertheless awarded, this was allegedly only possible by denying the ‘civil’ element of the war.3 A thorough examination of this question, however, is required.4 The Late Republic was a period of transformation in the rules and conventions across many political phenomena and rituals. The changes in the Roman political system in the first century led to a corresponding transformation in the function and character of the triumph, with triumphal processions of unprecedented grandeur being celebrated by the great dynasts from Sulla to Octavian. Lesser commanders, whose triumphal ambitions were often obstructed by political opposition in the Late Republic, enjoyed ample opportunities to triumph under the patronage of the triumvirs, but under the Principate the triumph rapidly became the exclusive prerogative of the imperial house. Many of the wars of the period were mainly civil conflicts, causing a tension between the traditional expectation that triumphs should be celebrated for victories over foreign enemies, and the need of the great commanders to give full expression to their prestige, charisma, and to legitimize their power.5 This chapter will examine these tensions and the ways in which they were resolved.

The conventional prohibition on civil war triumphs The main ancient source which outlines the rules and customary practices relating to triumphs is the chapter (2.8) which Valerius Maximus devotes to the

96

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

topic as part of his treatment of disciplina militaris.6 The last section of this chapter (2.8.7) asserts that no supplicationes, ovations or triumphs had ever been held for a civil war and runs as follows:7 verum quamvis quis praeclaras res maximeque utiles rei publicae civili bello gessisset, imperator tamen eo nomine appellatus non est, neque ullae supplicationes decretae sunt, neque aut ovans aut curru triumphavit, quia ut necessariae istae, ita lugubres semper existimatae sunt victoriae, utpote non externo sed domestico partae cruore. itaque et Nasica Ti. Gracchi et Gaii Opimius factiones maesti trucidarunt. Q. Catulus, M. Lepido collega suo cum omnibus seditiosis copiis extincto, vultu moderatum prae se ferens gaudium in urbem revertit. C. etiam Antonius, Catilinae victor, abstersos gladios in castra rettulit. L. Cinna et C. Marius hauserant quidem avidi civilem sanguinem, sed non protinus ad templa deorum et aras tetenderunt. iam L. Sulla, qui plurima bella civilia confecit, cuius crudelissimi et insolentissimi successus fuerunt, cum consummata atque constituta potentia sua triumphum duceret, ut Graeciae et Asiae multas urbes, ita civium Romanorum nullum oppidum vexit. piget taedetque per vulnera rei publicae ulterius procedere. iauream nec senatus cuiquam dedit nec quisquam sibi dari desideravit civitatis parte lacrimante. ceterum ad quercum pronae manus porriguntur, ubi ob cives servatos corona danda est, qua postes Augustae domus sempiterna gloria triumphant. (‘No man, however, though he might have accomplished great things eminently useful to the commonwealth in a civil war, was given the title of imperator on that account, nor were any thanksgivings decreed, nor did such a one triumph either in ovation or with chariot, for such victories have ever been accounted grievous, though necessary, as won by domestic not foreign blood. So Nasica and Opimius were sorrowful when they slaughtered the factions of Ti. Gracchus and Gaius. When Q. Catulus put an end to his colleague M. Lepidus along with all the forces of sedition, he returned to the city with only a moderate display of joy on his face. C. Antonius too, Catilina’s conqueror, brought swords wiped clean back to camp. L. Cinna and C. Marius drank greedily of their countrymen’s blood, it is true, but they did not go straightway to the temples and altars of the gods. Even L. Sulla, who won more civil wars than any man and whose victories were cruel and insolent beyond others, when he celebrated a triumph after consummating and consolidating his power, bore many cities of Greece and Asia in procession but no town of Roman citizens. Revulsion and weariness forbid further advance through the hurts of the commonwealth. The senate gave no man a laurel nor did any wish to be given one with part of the community in tears. But hands are readily stretched forth to receive the oak, when a crown is to be granted for countrymen saved. With it the doorposts of the August dwelling triumph in eternal glory’).

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

97

Two recent discussions maintain that Valerius Maximus’ whole chapter, and this section in particular, are driven by contemporary political circumstances. Engels (2001) argues that Valerius Maximus writes here as an imperial propagandist, while Goldbeck and Mittag (2008) suggest that he insinuates a criticism of the regime. Neither view convinces. Here as elsewhere Valerius Maximus, who composed his work under Tiberius, writes as a loyal supporter of the house of the Caesars, but his primary purpose is to moralize and inform. Goldbeck and Mittag’s most persuasive point relates to Valerius Maximus’ puzzling insistence at 2.8.3 (based on an otherwise unknown and surely mistaken anecdote) that it was an offence to decline a triumph. Yet we know that Augustus frequently refused triumphs (RG 4.1).8 Valerius Maximus cannot here intend to imply a criticism of the regime, in light of his loyal statements elsewhere and fulsome tribute to Augustus with which he ends the chapter.9 In that section Valerius Maximus in fact neatly avoids the question as to whether Caesar and Octavian accepted or declined to accept the prohibition on civil war triumphs, by concluding his survey of the civil wars with Catilina. This may well be intentional loyalism, as Engels suggests (2001: 168). However, there is no reason to think that the topic has been introduced for this reason. These and other recent discussions of the chapter have overlooked the question of Valerius Maximus’ possible sources and method of composition for the chapter.10 Recent discussions have rightly rejected older views that Valerius Maximus worked chiefly from an earlier collection of exempla, and have shown that he made his own selection and arrangement of material drawn from a limited range of sources, principally Cicero, Livy and (for non-Roman items) Pompeius Trogus.11 However, it is likely that for some topics he started with a core of items taken from an individual source and then elaborated these with additional material. For some chapters he can be shown to have used Cicero in this fashion.12 For chapter 2.8 on triumphal laws it appears that he gathered the entire selection himself from various sources. He may have started with an earlier writer’s treatment of the topic and then added his own elaborations and additional examples, drawing on other sources and his own general knowledge. A probable candidate for the primary source is Varro, either his Antiquitates, the De vita populi Romani or his logistoricus, De bello et pace.13 Valerius Maximus’ own additions will account for the erroneous information at various points in the chapter, such as the strange story at 2.8.5 or the false statement that Marcellus was denied a triumph over Syracuse because he had been sent to the command without a magistracy. In 2.8.7 the primary source may have asserted the principle that no celebration was held after civil war and

98

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

mentioned the case of Sulla, and may well have gone on to note the contrary example of Caesar; Valerius Maximus may have added at least some of the further illustrations from the Gracchi to Catilina, and will certainly have consciously avoided mentioning later civil wars.14 As Mommsen noted,15 the principle that triumphs and related ceremonies should not be held for civil wars is well attested in other sources besides Valerius Maximus. In the Philippics, Cicero maintained that supplicationes had never been requested or decreed for civil war victories.16 Lucan, at the start of his poem, laments that the civil wars which were to be his theme were wars that could win no triumphs (1.12). Various sources, discussed further below, note the rule in relation to particular commanders: thus Florus (2.10.1,9) mentions it in connection with Pompeius’ Spanish triumph, Plutarch (Caes. 56.7-9) and Dio Cassius (42.18.1, 43.42.1) mention it in connection with Caesar’s triumphs and Dio Cassius (51.19.5) does so in respect to Octavian’s, while Tacitus (Hist. 4.4.2) reports that the grant of ornamenta triumphalia to Vespasian’s commanders was in breach of the rule. There was thus an ancient consensus on the matter of the triumph and civil war.17 The very accusation of seeking to triumph over a fellow citizen could be a political tactic. Thus Livy reports that when the dictator Cornelius Cossus, who had been opposing the agitation of Manlius Capitolinus, celebrated a triumph against the Volscians, the discontented claimed that he was really holding it over a citizen, not an enemy.18 The consensus against civil war triumphs continued into the Later Roman Empire and scruples regarding the celebration of such triumphs were always present.19 These attitudes appear in the panegyric of 321 CE (Nazarius), presented in Rome in Constantine’s absence, reflecting on the celebrations of 312 CE (Pan. Lat. 4(10).31.1-3):20 non agebantur quidem ante currum vincti duces sed incedebat tandem soluta nobilitas. non coniecti in carcerem barbari sed educti e carcere consulares. non captiui alienigenae introitum illum honestauerunt sed Roma iam libera. nil ex hostico accepit sed se ipsam recuperavit, nec praeda auctior facta est sed esse praeda desivit et, quo nil adici ad gloriae magnitudinem [maius] potest, imperium recepit quae seruitium sustinebat. duci sane omnibus videbantur subacta uitiorum agmina quae Vrbem grauiter obsederant: . . . (‘Leaders in chains were not driven before the chariot, but the nobility marched along, freed at last. Barbarians were not cast into prison but ex-­consuls were let out of it. Captive foreigners did not adorn that entrance but Rome was now free. She received nothing of an enemy’s but recovered her own self, she was not enriched by spoils but ceased to be despoiled and – nothing greater can be added

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

99

to the magnitude of her glory – she who had endured slavery got back her command. It certainly seemed to everyone that the vices which had grievously haunted the City were led in a subjugated procession: . . .’) [trans. Nixon and Rodgers 1994, adapted].

The ideology found in the Panegyrici Latini was not dictated by the imperial court,21 but the orators were close to the court and thus were hardly critical voices.22 The writer of the 321 CE panegyrics clearly knew triumphal conventions.23 There is no critique of Constantine. Liberating Rome from the tyranny of Maxentius, who, according to this statement had persecuted the Senate, was sufficient justification for this extraordinary triumph or – as seems to be the case here, in contrast to a triumph – this adventus (32.1: quis triumphus inlustrior, quae species pulchrior, quae pompa felicior? (‘What triumph was more illustrious, what spectacle more beautiful, what procession more fortunate?’)). However, it cannot be entirely excluded that rules of triumph are alluded to here in response to contemporary criticism of Constantine. The historian and soldier Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the fourth century CE, describes the adventus of Constantius II, the son of Constantine, in a section entitled Constantii Aug. militaris ac velut triumphalis in urbem Romam adventus (16.10.1-18: ‘The arrival of Constantius Augustus in military attire and resembling a triumphator’).24 The civil war was fought against the usurper Magnentius, who committed suicide after being defeated at the battle of Mons Seleucus (16.10.1-2): haec dum per eoas partes et Gallias pro captu temporum disponuntur, Constantius quasi cluso Iani templo stratisque hostibus cunctis, Romam visere gestiebat, post Magnenti exitium absque nomine ex sanguine Romano triumphaturus. 2 nec enim gentem ullam bella cientem per se superavit, aut victam fortitudine suorum comperit ducum, vel addidit quaedam imperio, aut usquam in necessitatibus summis primus vel inter primos est visus, sed ut pompam nimis extentam rigentiaque auro vexilla et pulchritudinem stipatorum ostenderet agenti tranquillius populo, haec vel simile quicquam videre nec speranti umquam nec optanti. (‘While these events were so being arranged in the Orient and in Gaul in accordance with the times, Constantius, as if the temple of Janus had been closed and all his enemies overthrown, was eager to visit Rome and after the death of Magnentius to celebrate, without a title, a triumph over Roman blood. For neither in person did he vanquish any nation that made war upon him, nor learn of any conquered by the valour of his generals; nor did he add anything to his

100

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

empire; nor at critical moments was he anywhere seen to be the foremost, or among the foremost; but he desired to display an inordinately long procession, banners stiff with goldwork, and the splendour of his retinue, to a populace living in perfect peace and neither expecting nor desiring to see this or anything like it’).

Constantius arrived like a triumphator (velut triumphalis). Ammianus is here mocking the unsoldierly Constantius, suggesting that he desired to arrive in Rome (adventus) like a triumphator, but absque nomine (without the name), suggesting that this was not a true triumph as the victory was against Romans (ex sanguine Romano). At 16.10.2 he explains why there could be no triumph: Constantius did not defeat any nation who had attacked Rome, nor did he conquer any nation or add any lands to the Empire.25 The Temple of Janus is mentioned, but again, only to mock the emperor, as the temple was in fact never closed.26 Had he indeed closed the temple, as a symbol of peace, the gesture would have been futile, as the Romans already lived in peace (10.2). Ammianus is therefore part of a long Roman tradition that acknowledges the convention that no triumph should be won for a civil war.27 The Egyptian Claudian, a writer of panegyric and propaganda for the court of Honorius, composed a panegyric to celebrate Honorius’ sixth consulship and his entry into Rome in January 404 CE (VI Cons. 543ff). Here the typical Byzantine emperor becomes the popularis princeps and a fellow citizen (cives: 558; cf. 58), a trope dating to Pliny’s panegyric on Trajan.28 In Rome Honorius may have celebrated a triumph over Alaric and the Goths,29 which served as the background of a speech by a personified Rome concerning triumph and civil war (392–406).30 The context of the speech is of victory over a foreign enemy and nostra ter Augustos intra pomeria vidi does not explicitly refer to triumph. However, Tropaeus may here be a metonym for triumphal entry. There are more explicit statements later, especially at 553: ovanti, 579–80: curru . . . triumphantem. However, this may just be panegyric portraying Honorius’ adventus for his sixth consulship as a Gothic triumph. Significantly, even if this was an adventus, Claudian, as does Ammianus, speaks of the emperor’s adventus in triumphal terms, not because they were virtually elided, but to stress that civil war celebrations were a bad thing. Claudian mentions three occasions upon which an emperor entered the walls, probably referring to the civil war triumph of Constantine in 312 CE over Maxentius and Theodosius’ victories over Eugenius and Maximus (VI Cons. 57– 59; Pan. Lat. 2(12).46.4). Tyrannus may have been a standard justification for such civil war victories, but according to Claudian this clearly makes it no less a civil

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

101

war victory. He makes the valid point that Caesar did not triumph for Pharsalus, however, he does not mention that Caesar’s final triumph, following his defeat of Pompeius’ sons at Munda in 45, was only over civil opponents (see below). The later Roman evidence clearly suggests that there was a continuation of the Late Republican consensus on the issue of triumph and civil war. The principle that triumphs – indeed celebrations in general – should not be held for exclusively civil wars could only have been articulated in the first century BCE when civil wars became common. The question arises, therefore, as to how the triumph of Constantine, if indeed he ever celebrated one, corresponds to this Late Republican convention. Moreover, how did this principle come to be recognized? As Lundgreen has recently argued, the question of triumphal rules needs to be considered in the larger contexts of Roman political rules and rule conflicts.31 Most of the rules relating to triumphs appear to have been formulated alongside the development of Roman warfare, which brought new issues to the Senate’s attention as it came to decide on the award of triumphs. As pointed out already, it was only on Marcellus’ return from Syracuse in 211 that the issue first arose as to whether a commander could triumph without bringing back his army (Livy 26.21.2-4); and Scipio’s return from Spain in 206 was the first time that the Senate had to consider if a victorious general who had been appointed as a privatus, rather than as a magistrate, should be allowed to triumph. Similarly, the principle that triumphs should not be held for civil wars could only have been expressed in the first century when civil wars actually broke out. In contrast to other triumphal conventions, it is unlikely to have been formulated through senatorial debate, since the issue of civil war triumphs had not generally been brought to the Senate’s formal consideration. It was probably through the informal dialogue of contemporaries that the principle came to be given expression, reflecting the general inappropriateness of such conflicts. It was perhaps Caesar’s triumphs that brought the issue to the fore, although his actions followed a tradition which had begun with Sulla and Pompeius, to whom we now turn.

Sulla and the war against Mithridates During the period from 87 to 82, Sulla and his adversaries fought Rome’s first civil war.32 The political turmoil did not cease with Marius’ death in 86. The son of Marius was elected consul in 82, even though not eligible, and was defeated

102

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

near Praeneste. The city later surrendered and Marius’ son committed suicide.33 There is no denying that this was civil war. Stating the obvious will hopefully help to clarify the matter at hand right at the outset: in 81, Sulla celebrated a two-­ day triumph de rege Mithridate after what must be described as a peace treaty, with the king neither defeated nor dethroned.34 On the second day the procession carried gold and silver which the younger Marius had taken to Praeneste (Plin., HN 33.16): in eadem post annos CCCVII, quod ex Capitolinae aedis incendio ceterisque omnibus delubris C. Marius filius Praeneste detulerat, XIIII pondo, quae sub eo titulo in triumpho transtulit Sulla et argenti VI. idem ex reliqua omni victoria pridie transtulerat auri pondo XV, argenti p. CXV. (‘From the same city 307 years later the gold that Gaius Marius the younger had conveyed to Praeneste from the conflagration of the temple of the Capitoline and from all the other shrines amounted to 14,000 lbs., which with a placard above it to that effect was carried along in his triumphal procession by Sulla, as well as 6,000 lbs. weight of silver. Sulla had likewise on the previous day carried in procession 15,000 lbs. of gold and 115,000 lbs. of silver as the proceeds of all the rest of his victories’).

According to Plutarch (Sull. 34), Romans returning from exile were part of the triumphal procession. In this way Sulla celebrated post-­civil war restorations, similar to his rebuilding of the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, which was destroyed by fire in 83.35 This is no doubt true. That the battle was fought in Italy and thus could be perceived as civil war – Mutina is the obvious parallel – was certainly a problem for Sulla. However, this does not mean that this triumph was perceived as being celebrated over civil opponents.36 Contrary to this Sumi has argued: Sulla was somewhat ambivalent about how he should celebrate his victory in the civil war. One reason for this is that Sulla’s triumph was for a double victory, one over a foreign enemy (Mithridates) as well as one over a Roman citizen (Marius). The entry in the Fasti Triumphales appears to record only the victory over Mithridates – Marius is left unmentioned – indicating perhaps that Sulla desired to downplay his victory in Italy over Roman citizens, at least in the official records.37

Our evidence does not mention civil war enemies in connection with the granting of the triumph. The only Romans present in the procession were the returning exiles. Valerius Maximus states that even though Sulla had won more civil wars than any other Roman, no Roman towns were paraded at his triumph;

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

103

only towns from Greece and Asia were represented.38 However, as an important correction to my 2013 article, Vervaet (2014b: 135, and n. 24) rightly emphasizes that this was indeed related to civil war: the notorious lex Sulpicia, which transferred the war against Mithridates from the consul Sulla to the extraordinary proconsul Marius, had been the immediate trigger for the full-­scale military confrontation of 88.39 Moreover, as I already noted in 2013, the exiled citizens were part of this. The point to be made, however, is that the triumph was officially granted only for the victory over Mithridates. Cicero states that Sulla received no supplications (Phil. 14.23). He also points out that two men had celebrated triumphs against Mithridates, who nevertheless was still on the throne.40 Pliny mentions the gold and silver carried in the triumphal procession, but does not suggest that the triumph was after a civil war, and neither does Appian (B Civ. 1.101) nor Plutarch (Sull. 34). However, as pointed out by Havener (2014: 167–9), Pliny reports that the spoils were divided over the two-­day triumph: on the first day the spoils from the war against Mithridates were presented, on the second day the ‘spoils’ from Praeneste.41 Havener concludes, not without reason, that the external and the civil war victories were separated on a performative level. But even if it seems odd to include civil war ‘booty’ in a triumph catalogue – if this indeed happened – the booty would have been state property (at least in part) and an integral part of his restoring of the Roman state after ending the civil war. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, the more this is stressed, the more obvious it becomes that the triumph was granted for the war against Mithridates, and him alone.42 In this case a foreign war certainly did not have to be invented, and nothing suggests that the Mithridates triumph was part of a cover-­up of a civil war triumph. Yet the blurring between civil and foreign war is certainly visible at this early stage of the civil wars: the younger Marius is mentioned on a placard at Sulla’s triumphal procession, thus acknowledging his defeat.43 This may be a way of integrating civil war into the Republican triumphal procession. There is however another aspect of Sulla’s rule that is of great relevance to the development of the Late Republican triumph. In 88 Sulla had Marius and others declared public enemies (hostes).

Hostes declarations Dio Cassius succinctly summarizes the practice of declaring people enemies of the state in reference to the events after the assassination of Caesar (43 BCE: 46.34.5):

104

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

οἱ μὲν γὰρ εὖ πράξαντες καὶ εὔβουλοι καὶ φιλοπόλιδες ἐνομίσθησαν, οἱ δὲ δὴ πταίσαντες καὶ πολέμιοι τῆς πατρίδος καὶ ἀλιτήριοι ὠνομάσθησαν. (‘For those who were successful were considered shrewd and patriotic, while the defeated were called enemies of their country and accursed’).

The traditionally accepted connection between the senatus consultum ultimum and hostes declarations has recently come under criticism.44 Most agree that the magistrates would seek to counter any violent threat from citizens towards the res publica.45 However critics of the traditional view have argued that this was not a question of legality and it owed nothing to a lex. The institution of the SC ultimum was created by mos and was a political instrument.46 It was thus not a formal declaration of a state of emergency.47 Furthermore, the hostis declarations are never connected closely to the final decree.48 These enemies of the state, having been declared hostes, were of course (former) Romans, and thus the declaration itself reveals the civil war aspect. The connection between civil war and hostes declarations becomes marked under Sulla.49 In 88 Sulla had Marius and others declared hostes.50 A similar fate befell Sulla and Cinna in 87 (App., B Civ. 1.65; 73) and in 83 the senators who supported Sulla (App., B Civ. 1.86). During his march on Rome some of the rhetoric employed by Sulla echoed that usually reserved for foreign enemies.51 As Octavian would do later, Sulla supposedly spoke of freeing the state from tyrants (App., B Civ. 1.57). In both cases the victor faced the challenge of the people’s reaction to the very notion of a Roman marching on Rome itself. Sulla faced similar difficulties after the issue of the proscription lists in 82.52 The leading opponents of Sulla could thus be killed with impunity (App., B Civ. 1.60), their property confiscated and their houses destroyed.53 As mentioned in Chapter 4, the heads of those executed were displayed in the Forum Romanum and the bodies thrown into the Tiber.54 Marius’ body was even exhumed and the remains scattered on the orders of Sulla,55 and the trophies commemorating his victories removed.56 Sulla’s triumph was for a genuine foreign war, unrelated to the civil conflict. Nevertheless, he did use it to celebrate the restoration after the civil war – the return of exiles and recovered moneys. He did not, as did Constantine later, present the heads in the triumph. But the fact that they were displayed in the Forum suggests that this was a civil war. One general point can thus already be made: the Romans were not afraid to admit civil war, but in triumphal matters it remained taboo. It is fascinating that the hostes declarations in 88 were, according to Appian (B Civ. 1.60), the consequence of civil strife turned into civil war. Of course the

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

105

declaration in itself turned the public enemy into a non-Roman, at least in principle; but in the process was conducted in a very public way: the display of heads in the Forum. In light of the principle of triumphs not being awarded for exclusively civil wars, a picture emerges: perhaps civil war was toned down in the triumph, but the Sullan act on the Forum, as later with the triumvirs, shows that they were not afraid to represent civil war. In these cases, of course, it was the defeated enemy who had stirred up civil war and thus paid the price. Peace was never the norm in Roman society, indeed warfare was essential for concepts of triumphal rulership. But perhaps surprisingly, civil war came to be considered the norm during certain periods. Thus Romans were forced to debate and develop a way to conceptualize civil war: the hostis declaration was one, the triumph another. This process began with Sulla and continued throughout Roman history.

Pompeius’ African and Spanish triumphs Pompeius was the first commander to triumph over three continents.57 His career represents the next phase of triumphal history and civil war, as both his African and Spanish triumphs were for conflicts which were in reality civil wars. By decree of the Senate, Pompeius was ordered to proceed to Africa and suppress the Marian opposition led by Domitius Ahenobarbus.58 He was awarded a triumph, although its date is uncertain.59 Domitius had been joined by Hiarbas, king of Numidia, and thus the conflict could be represented as a foreign war, and there is no mention of any problem over the civil element. Sulla opposed the awarding of the triumph, but did so based on the fact that Pompeius commanded as a privatus – indeed, he was not even a senator – referring back to Scipio Africanus, who had not triumphed for the same reason even though his victories were far greater.60 Pompeius had first made his name in the civil war by raising a private army and supporting Sulla. After his African victory Pompeius was instructed to disband his army, but refused and returned to Italy with his army.61 The procession was remarkable in that the triumphal chariot was drawn by four elephants rather than the usual four horses.62 However the triumphal gate was too narrow and the animals had to be removed.63 Moreover, further difficulties ensued when the soldiers tried to seize the booty, claiming that they had not received their fair share.64 In 77 Pompeius was sent to Spain to fight the opponents of the Sullan settlement. He returned in 71 to celebrate his Spanish triumph together with

106

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Metellus Pius. These were for wars in which the enemy commanders had been Roman (Sertorius and Perperna), as mentioned by Florus (2.10.1):65 bellum Sertorianum quid amplius quam Sullanae proscriptionis hereditas fuit? hostile potius an civile dixerim nescio, quippe quod Lusitani Celtiberique Romano gesserint duce. (‘What was the war with Sertorius except an inheritance from the Sullan proscription? I know not whether to call it a war against enemies or a civil war, for it was waged by the Lusitani and Celtiberi under a Roman leader’).

However, it could be justified on the grounds that the enemy soldiers were largely Spanish non-­citizens, a point made by Florus (2.10.9): victores duces externum id magis quam civile bellum videri voluerunt, ut triumpharent (‘The victorious generals desired that the struggle should be considered a foreign rather than a civil war in order that they might celebrate a triumph’). It is not clear however whether there was any concern at the time, although Pompeius’ huge popularity at this point may in any case have overridden such worries. Pompeius’ Spanish triumph thus provided a partial precedent for Caesar’s Spanish triumph. Unfortunately the notice of Pompeius’ and Metellus’ triumphs is lost in the Fasti Triumphales, but they were probably specified just as ex Hispania. Similarly, Pompeius’ African triumph provided a precedent for Caesar’s African triumph over Juba. Pliny, however, has an important note on Pompeius triumphal history (HN 7.96): igitur Sicilia recuperata, unde primum Sullanus in rei publicae causa exoriens auspicatus est, Africa vero tota subacta et in dicionem redacta, Magnique nomine in spolium inde capto, eques Romanus, id quod antea nemo, curru triumphali revectus et statim ad solis occasum transgressus, excitatis in Pyrenaeo tropaeis, oppida DCCCLXXVI ab Alpibus ad fines Hispaniae ulterioris in dicionem redacta victoriae suae adscripsit et maiore animo Sertorium tacuit, belloque civili, quod omnia externa conciebat, extincto iterum triumphales currus Eques Romam induxit, totiens imperator ante quam miles. (‘Well then, after the recovery of Sicily, which inaugurated his emergence as a champion of the commonwealth in the party of Sulla, and after the conquest of the whole of Africa and its reduction under our sway, and the acquirement as a trophy therefrom of the title of The Great, he rode back in a triumphal chariot though only of equestrian rank, a thing which had never occurred before; and immediately afterwards he crossed over to the West, and after erecting trophies in the Pyrenees he added to the record of his victorious career the reduction under our sway of 876 towns from the Alps to the frontiers of Further Spain, and with

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

107

greater magnanimity refrained from mentioning Sertorius, and after crushing the civil war [71 BCE] which threatened to stir up all our foreign relations, a second time led into Rome a procession of triumphal chariots as a Knight, having twice been commander-­in-chief before having ever served in the ranks’).

There are many points of interest: Pompeius built trophies to commemorate his victories,66 he wrote about his accomplishments in both his letter to the Senate and the triumphal record, including the number of conquered cities, and he celebrated triumphs even though not a regular magistrate.67 Moreover, there is a distinct blurring of foreign and civil war: Pompeius does not, according to Pliny, mention Sertorius by name. But civil war is not absent. Such a conflict was a problem for the internal stability of the empire, and thus the crushing of the civil war is mentioned prominently. The civil war is extinct, a phrase similar to Augustus’ in RG 34.1: in consulatu sexto et septimo, postqua[m b]el[la ciuil]ia exstinxeram. Pliny’s account is of course influenced by the ways in which Augustus legitimized his actions, but it does appear that Pompeius had two aims. Firstly, a triumph in what was essentially a civil war, and thus he focuses on the foreign elements and avoids mentioning Sertorius: and secondly, the claim to have ended the civil war, even making it extinct. Once again Pompeius refused to disband his army when he returned to Italy and Rome, even though ordered to do so (probably ex SC; see Vervaet 2009: 406–12) – allegedly because he was waiting for Metellus, the consular commander in Spain, to return in order to celebrate his Spanish triumph.68 There is a distinct fear of a new civil war at this point (App., B Civ. 1.121). After having defeated the remnants of Spartacus’ army he demanded another triumph, once again with his soldiers present to offer support and pressure.69 Pompeius was no doubt an extremely ambitious dynast and he ruthlessly pushed the boundaries of triumphal customs.

Caesar and the enemies of Rome The year 49 once again saw civil unrest turn into civil war proper with Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. The Senate had ordered him to dismiss his army and return to Rome, thus effectively relieving him of his command.70 While initiating civil war was reprehensible, fighting one was not necessarily so, certainly not in Caesar’s own view. Caesar’s justification – as it would be for Augustus after him – was the rei publicae causa (‘for the sake of the commonwealth’): by defending the res publica the Romans might again be freed from fear (metus), the result of civil strife.71 Similarly, as Octavian did later (RG 1.1), he claimed that

108

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

the res publica was oppressed by a faction (B Civ. 1.22.5): uti se a contumeliis inimicorum defenderet, ut tribunos plebis in ea re ex civitate expulsos in suam dignitatem restitueret, ut se et populum Romanum factione paucorum oppressum in libertatem vindicaret (‘to defend himself from the insults of his foes, to restore to their position the tribunes of the people who at that conjuncture had been expelled from the state, to assert the freedom of himself and the Roman people who had been oppressed by a small faction’).72 Civil war was disgraceful, but the principal theme running through the Bellum Civile is that Caesar’s cause was that of peace (1.5.5: res ad otium deduci), as opposed to Pompeius, who wanted war (1.4.5: rem ad arma deduci).73 The enemies of Caesar had initiated the turmoil and thus were to blame (1.32.3). It began with Scipio’s motion that Caesar must lay down his arms or commit an act hostile to the state (1.2): sic vocibus consulis, terrore praesentis exercitus, minis amicorum Pompei plerique compulsi invite et coacti Scipionis sententiam sequuntur: uti ante certam diem Caesar exercitum dimittat; si non faciat, eum adversus rem publicam facturum videri (‘Thus most of the senators, compelled by the language of the consul, intimidated by the presence of the army and by the threats of the friends of Pompeius, against their will and yielding to pressure, adopt the proposal of Scipio that Caesar should disband his army before a fixed date, and that, if he failed to do so, he should be considered to be mediating treason against the res publica’). The answer is found in 1.9: sed tamen ad omnia se descendere paratum atque omnia pati rei publicae cause. proficiscatur Pompeius in suas provincias, ipsi exercitus dimittant, discedant in Italia omnes ab armis, metus e civitate tollatur, libera comitia atque omnis res publica senatui populoque Romano permittatur. (‘Still I am prepared to resort to anything, to submit to anything, for the sake of the commonwealth. Let Pompeius go to his own province, let us disband our armies, let everyone in Italy lay down his arms, let fear be banished from the state, let free elections and the whole control of the res publica be handed over to the Senate and the Roman People’).

The rhetoric is very similar to that of Octavian in the laying down of the powers of the triumvirate.74 It certainly is a civil war setting, or perhaps, attempting to avoid one. This interpretation is also evident in Suetonius, quoting Asinius Pollio: ‘They would have it so. Even I, Gaius Caesar, after so many great deeds, should have been found guilty, if I had not turned to my army for help’ (hoc voluerunt; tantis rebus gestis Gaius Caesar condemnatus essem, nisi ab exercitu auxilium petissem). These statements are, of course, seeking to legitimize action, and they

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

109

insist upon the need for war and the use of soldiers, albeit in self-­defence. Nevertheless, Caesar scrupulously avoided even sending a despatch after his victory at Pharsalus, which was exclusively a civil war, in 48.75 But he did send despatches and receive supplicationes for the foreign wars in Egypt and Pontus. Rather than obscuring the obvious truth that many conflicts during the Late Republic were civil wars, the victors utilized that very fact against their rivals: their opponents started the civil conflicts which they then quelled.76 This process of political justification is aptly described by Raaflaub: ‘We need to keep in mind what seems obvious but is easily overlooked: to begin a civil war was no minor matter’ (Raaflaub 2010: 162). Perhaps surprisingly, Caesar gave a figure of 15,000 enemy casualties at Pharsalus.77 This needs however to be compared to the figure given by Appian, probably deriving from the Historiae of Asinius Pollio.78 He (B Civ. 2.82) writes: ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἄλλης στρατιᾶς οἱ μὲν ἐπαίροντές φασι δισμυρίους ἐπὶ πεντακισχιλίοις, Ἀσίνιος δὲ Πολλίων, ὑπὸ Καίσαρι τῆς μάχης ἐκείνης στρατηγῶν, ἑξακισχιλίους ἀναγράφει νεκροὺς εὑρεθῆναι τῶν Πομπηίου. (‘. . . as regards the rest of [Pompeius’] army, some exaggerate and say that there were 25,000 casualties, whereas Asinius Pollio, one of Caesar’s officers in the battle, reports that there were found to be 6,000 Pompeian dead’) [trans. Westall 2013].

Pollio here is no doubt minimizing his involvement in civil war.79 But it does suggest that even if no triumph was sought, military victory, even in a civil war, was worthy of praise. Moreover, only enemy figures are given. Whatever the reason, Caesar did not keep the figure down; he had beaten Pompeius, his great adversary. This may even suggest that the higher figure is more reliable. Caesar returned to Rome in 46 to celebrate four triumphs, for his victories against Gaul, Egypt, Pontus and Africa. Suetonius associates these triumphs with civil war as he lists Caesar’s Roman enemies (Suet., Iul. 37): confectis bellis quinquiens triumphavit, post devictum Scipionem quater eodem mense, sed interiectis diebus, et rursus semel post superatos Pompei liberos. (‘Having ended the wars, he celebrated five triumphs, four in a single month, but at intervals of a few days, after vanquishing Scipio; and another on defeating Pompeius’ sons’).

Plutarch stresses that the African triumph was apparently over Juba, the African ally of L. Scipio, not Scipio himself (Plut., Caes. 55). In this respect it followed the precedent of Pompeius’ African campaign. Sumi stresses that the triumph of 46

110

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

could not avoid allusions to the recent past, to civil war (Sumi 2005: 57–60, esp. 59). Appian however shows that he did not try to avoid this allusion in any way. Caesar’s fourth triumph in 46 was over King Juba, but this was just a pretext for celebrating his civil war victory.80 A Senate decree of 48 had authorized Caesar to fight the Pompeians in Africa and to be arbiter of war and peace.81 The justification appears to have been that Caesar was within his rights to fight them as they were not citizens, but enemies collaborating with foreign powers. According to Jehne this assignment only ended with its accomplishment (Jehne 1987: 43–56, esp. 52). The Senate even voted the triumph to Caesar, over Juba and the Romans fighting with him, before the war had begun; after the victory they further honoured him with forty days’ supplicationes and the right to triumph with white horses.82 The vote before the war may have been a form of compensation for their inability to celebrate Pharsalus. However, the voting of triumphs in absence to honour dynasts also set a precedent.83 Thus the African triumph itself was respectable and followed the precedent of Pompeius. However in the procession itself Caesar included depictions of the deaths of Scipio, Petreius and Cato, although without inscribing their names (App., B Civ. 2.101). Even though he did not parade an image of Pompeius in his triumph it must be stressed just how outrageous, indeed gratuitously provocative, this must have been. Nevertheless Caesar established a model with his Juba triumph: he only held ovations or triumphs for civil wars which could be represented as external.84 Yet he was certainly not concealing the civil element of the conflict.85 Caesar’s final triumph, following his defeat of Pompeius’ sons at Munda in 45, was over only civil opponents.86 This is seemingly a new departure, unequivocally triumphing after a civil war victory, and it is said to have provoked disapproval.87 At the same time, there was a further flouting of the rules in the granting of triumphs ex Hispania to his legates, Fabius and Pedius, who had no independent imperium.88 This was probably anomalous, but was later regularized in the Fasti Triumphales, where Pedius is called ‘proconsul’ (by the time of the triumph Fabius was consul), so as to suggest that they had had an independent imperium. The assignment to pacify the empire was finally accomplished with the concluding of the civil war. After Munda Caesar may have relinquished the powers invested in him by the Senate in 48, although we cannot know for certain.89 Caesar’s Spanish triumph in 45 thus unequivocally broke the taboo on civil war triumphs. The question remains as to how different it was from the Spanish triumphs of Pompeius and Metellus Pius. These were also over Roman

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

111

commanders, and both these and Caesar’s triumphs were no doubt recorded as simply ex Hispania.90 The difference was the predominantly non-Roman forces fighting on the Sertorian side, although the anti-Caesarian forces at Munda must have been mostly raised in Spain.91 The resentment evoked by the Munda triumph may reflect not so much its novelty as the continuing strength of Pompeian sympathies in Rome.92 At the same point in time the honours awarded were rather extreme: he now wore the dress of the triumphator at all times and was accompanied by his twenty-­four lictors carrying laurel wreaths.93

Mutina: fighting for the res publica In the Res Gestae (1.1) Augustus claims that Antonius had oppressed the res publica through the tyranny of a faction. Liberating the state from the faction transformed the contentious act of raising an army into something legitimate.94 The ‘betrayal’ of libertas is used as a denouncement of the defeated faction: Pompeius and Caesar had done the same,95 as had Sulla before them (App., B Civ. 1.57). The main justification in 44–43 was that Antonius started the war against Decimus Brutus at Mutina.96 This is only indirectly mentioned in RG 1.1, but it is most probably the idea behind mentioning the tyranny of a faction. Answering the calls of the Republic, Cicero ‘wrote’ the Philippics in 44–43 – a series of speeches, some delivered and some not.97 Echoing Demosthenes (384–322), Cicero wrote on freedom versus slavery; Demosthenes’ Philippics were originally written against Philip II of Macedonia, defending Athenian independence from Macedonian dominance. Books one and two of Cicero’s work were written against Antonius whilst he was still in Rome. The second book sought to salvage Cicero’s own dignitas after an attack by Antonius (after the first speech was delivered) – but never delivered – by attacking Antonius in return: there was a gulf between peace, which was libertas enjoyed in tranquillity, and servitude. The liberators had killed a tyrant, but now Antonius was even worse.98 This theme becomes a battle cry in the third book. Cicero does not want to wait until Antonius is no longer a consul – he wants to strike at once (Phil. 3.2): mea autem festinatio non victoriae solum avida est sed etiam celeritatis (‘But I am in a hurry. I am eager, not merely for victory, but for a quick war’). And he continues (Phil. 3.3): quo enim usque tantum bellum, tam crudele, tam nefarium privatis consiliis propulsabitur? (‘So, how long will a war of such magnitude, a cruel wicked war, be beaten back by private initiatives [Octavian and Decimus Brutus]’).

112

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

The third and subsequent books rely heavily on rhetoric: consul versus enemy, war versus peace, res publica versus tyranny/tyrant, liberty versus slavery. The aim was to defend the res publica and the liberty of the Roman people. In his final years Cicero was clearly ready to go to extremes. The whole res publica versus one public enemy, namely Antonius.99 He had fought the res publica and was thus a hostis. As a result the Martian legion was not on his side because he was an enemy of the state (Phil. 3.6): quae cum hostem populi Romani Antonium iudicasset, comes esse eius amentiae noluit: reliquit consulem; quod profecto non fecisset, si eum consulem iudicasset quem nihil aliud agere, nihil moliri nisi caedem civium atque interitum civitatis videret. (‘Judging Antonius to be the enemy of the Roman people, they refused to be party to his madness: they deserted the consul, which they would surely not have done if they had judged him to be a consul; but they saw that his only purpose and plan was to massacre citizens and destroy the community’) [cf. 21; 4.6; 13.35: iustissimo bello (legitimate war)].

Cicero focuses extensively on the liberating of the state from the new tyrannus.100 Antonius’ deeds should, according to Cicero, make the Romans regard him not as a consul, but a hostis. Cicero also suggests that the Roman legions were not subject to the commander but the res publica. At Phil. 10.12-14, having just stated that the legions belonged to the res publica, he compares Antonius and Brutus: while Antonius had misused the legions, Brutus had not as he was the saviour of the res publica. According to Cicero unconstitutional action was justified in order to save the res publica. In fact Brutus was not recognized as the governor of Macedonia and thus was not allowed to be in charge of the Macedonian legions: denique alter ad evertendam rem publicam praesidia quaerebat, alter ad conservandam. (‘In a word, the former was seeking military forces in order to overthrow the res publica, the latter to preserve it’).

The end justifies the means. Octavian is also presented as a defender of the res publica. That this was the basis of the same claim made in the Res Gestae is made clear by Cicero’s use of a comparable argument shortly before, in Philippics 14, to defend the legitimacy of the imperatorial acclamations of Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian. This speech was delivered the 21 April 43, after the news of the battle of Forum Gallorum on the 15 April, in support of a proposal to recognize the

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

113

three commanders’ acclamations and to decree supplicationes for fifty days. Cicero, who since January had been seeking to have Antonius declared a hostis,101 argues that decreeing supplicationes would imply that Antonius was a hostis and so make the acclamations as imperator legitimate.102 Nevertheless, even if the war was claimed as a bellum iustum, it still was fought against an enemy from within. In sections 22–4, he maintains that supplicationes and imperatorial acclamations had not occurred in earlier civil wars (24):103 quam ob rem aut supplicatio re publica pulcherrime gesta postulantibus nostris imperatoribus deneganda est, quod praeter A. Gabinium contigit nemini, aut supplicatione decernenda hostes eos de quibus decernitis indicetis necesse est. quod ergo ille re, id ego etiam verbo, cum imperatores eos appello: hoc ipso nomine et eos qui iam devicti sunt et eos qui supersunt hostis iudico [cum victores appello imperatores]. (‘Therefore, either you must refuse a public thanksgiving to our commanders for their splendid successes on behalf of the Republic when they are asking for it, something that has never happened to anybody except Aulus Gabinius, or by decreeing a public thanksgiving you necessarily declare enemies those to whom your decree refers. Therefore, when I salute our commanders as ‘imperators’, I am expressing in words what Servilius is expressing in fact: by this very title I declare enemies both those already thoroughly vanquished and those who remain’).

Cicero’s argument is subtle and intricate. He conveniently omits Caesar’s African and Spanish triumphs, and the fact that his suggestion that a supplicatio implied a hostis declaration was invalid: supplicationes could be voted for other reasons than victories over external enemies; his own supplicatio (for the conspiracy of Catilina) showed that relief from a civil threat was one such reason (a point he does not adequately rebut at 24).104 The Mutina victory (21 April) was also initially hailed with enthusiasm at Rome (although eventually fatal, with the consuls’ deaths and Antonius’ escape). Cicero’s recommendation at Phil. 14 was followed: Antonius and his followers were declared public enemies, and a triumph was voted to Decimus Brutus.105 Now that they were enemies not citizens it was permissible to triumph over them. Cicero was of course happy to support Decimus Brutus’ triumph, but in the end Brutus never returned to Rome to celebrate it.106 This problematic triumph was never the subject of any lengthy critical debates in our evidence. In effect the Senate’s decision went beyond the Munda precedent, since the triumph was to be celebrated not ex Hispania, but over Italy itself.107 Moreover, this was perhaps the first time where

114

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

such a triumph had been directly justified by a hostis declaration. The Senate also carried Caesarian precedents further by voting fifty days’ supplicatio and Cicero’s proposal that Decimus Brutus be included in the Fasti (Ad Brut. 1.15.8). To their credit, the triumvirs did not follow these controversial precedents in holding triumphs for wars which were exclusively civil, hostis declarations or not – no triumphs followed Philippi or Perusia. However, Octavian did stage a triumph-­like return to the city after Perusia, even wearing triumphal dress and a laurel crown (Dio Cass. 48.16.1). This willingness to take traditions to their limits and beyond is also obvious in the joint ovation of Antonius and Octavian in 40.

Brundisium: peace restored After the Perusine war Antonius arrived at Brundisium in 40 and Rome was on the brink of a new civil war, this time between the two triumvirs. The soldiers however refused to fight. The settlement of Brundisium extended the triumvirs’ assignment: the new task given to Octavian was to deal with Sextus Pompeius and thus to conclude the civil war.108 The Fasti Triumphales mentions the ovation for Antonius and Octavian after the signing of the treaty:109 Imp. Caesar Divi f. C. f. IIIvir r(ei) p(ublicae) c(onstituendae) ov[ans, an. DCCXIII] quod pacem cum M. Antonio fecit, [–––] (‘40 BCE: While Imp. Caesar Divi f. C. f. IIIvir r p c celebrated an ovation because he made peace with Antonius’) [Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568; cf. 342–3, Fasti Barberiniani].

The entry is in itself surprising, as it does not mention a foreign foe. The context and wording should convince most that this is about avoiding civil war. This was peace through diplomatic concord as opposed to civil war.110 Peace treaties are otherwise absent from the Fasti. According to Rosenberger (1992: 53–4) this emphasizes harmony, but it is also a joint ovation for avoiding a civil war. As such, the entry never should have been on the Fasti. This was a novel celebration, although Caesar’s ovation in 44 had provided a precedent for an ovation without a preceding war, or indeed an enemy111 and Lepidus had earlier received a supplicatio for negotiations with Sextus Pompeius.112 Amidst the proscriptions foreign wars appear to have faded into the background – and the Senate attempted to appease Lepidus by decreeing him honours.113 Lepidus’ triumph of 43, however, may have been mainly for victories in Spain, although they are unknown.114

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

115

The ovations after Brundisium were of a quite different and novel form, a ceremonial entry into Rome without a preceding war.115 But even if the occasions for these ovations were altogether different from those which followed wars, they clearly implied a link between the idea of the triumph and that of civil war.

Sicily: a war against slaves and pirates The war against Sextus Pompeius often causes problems in studies of perceptions of civil war during the Late Republic.116 In 36 Octavian returned to Rome, entering the city in ovation.117 This was an appropriate honour after a slave war (RG 25.1); the slave wars of 132, 99 and 71 BCE all won the victor an ovation.118 This was part of the new task given to Octavian: to deal with Sextus Pompeius and thus to end the civil war. The pretext of a foreign war was particularly strained in the case of the war in Sicily, but Cooley is certainly mistaken to argue that it was a civil war and thus did not qualify for a triumph, only an ovation.119 It is true that Suetonius perhaps fell into this error, since he supposes that Octavian’s first ovation was for Philippi (Aug. 22), but in that of course he was altogether mistaken.120 And if Valerius Maximus is reliable, this would in any case have been impossible, as a civil war victory could not earn the victor an ovation (2.8.7). It should be noted, incidentally, that Aulus Gellius may be mistaken in supposing that the victors in the wars against slaves and pirates were only given ovations (5.6.20-22: it is notable that he is grouping pirates and slaves together): ovandi ac non triumphandi causa est, cum aut bella non rite indicta neque cum iusto hoste gesta sunt, aut hostium nomen humile et non idoneum est, ut servorum piratarumque, aut, deditione repente facta, ‘inpulverea’, ut dici solet, incruentaque victoria obvenit. cui facilitati aptam esse Veneris frondem crediderunt, quod non Martius, sed quasi Venerius quidam triumphus foret. (‘The occasion for awarding an ovation, and not a triumph, is that wars have not been declared in due form and so have not been waged with a legitimate enemy, or that the adversaries’ character is low or unworthy, as in the case of slaves or pirates, or that, because of a quick surrender, a victory was won which was “dustless”, as the saying is, and bloodless. For such an easy victory they believed that the leaves sacred to Venus were appropriate, on the ground that it was a triumph, not of Mars, but as it were of Venus’).

M. Antonius may have been voted a full triumph in 102, as Plutarch refers to him as ‘a man who had triumphed’ (Pomp. 24.6: ‘θριαμβικός’).121 This shows that he

116

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

received some form of triumph after the campaign, but remains unspecific. There is a lacuna in Fasti Triumphales. If he took no troops (other than marines) from Rome, the celebration might have been naval.122 A further indication supporting this is the statement of Cicero (Orat. 3.10) that he decorated the Rostra with his spoils during his censorship in 97, although, this may refer to the fact that the main opponents were pirates: iam M. Antoni, in eis ipsis rostris in quibus ille rem publicam constantissime consul defenderat quaeque censor imperatoriis manubiis ornarat, positum caput illud fuit a quo erant multorum civium capita servata; . . . (‘Next M. Antonius, on the very platform on which as consul he had most resolutely championed the cause of the state and which as censor he had decorated with the trophies of his military command, laid down the life that had preserved the lives of many men; . . .’).

As Murray and Petsas argue, the spoils in question may have been rostra (prows). Cicero uses the word ornarat, thus suggesting rams that adorned the Rostra, and thus they assert that he held a naval triumph.123 Cicero however also uses the word munibiae, which may point to money resulting from the sale of booty. A naval triumph thus cannot be entirely disregarded, although the enemy may simply have been pirates. Indeed, in 74 Servilius Vatia Isauricus triumphed over pirates:124 unus plures praedonum duces vivos cepit P. Servilius quam omnes antea. Ecquando igitur isto fructu quisquam caruit, ut videre piratam captum non liceret? at contra, quacumque iter fecit, hoc iucundissimum spectaculum omnibus vinctorum captorumque hostium praebebat, itaque ei concursus fiebant undique ut non modo ex iis oppidis qua ducebantur sed etiam ex finitimis visendi causa convenirent. ipse autem triumphus quam ob rem omnium triumphorum gratissimus populo Romano fuit et iucundissimus? quia nihil est victoria dulcius, nullum est autem testimonium victoriae certius quam, quos saepe metueris, eos te vinctos ad supplicium duci videre. (‘Publius Servilius captured more pirate chiefs alive than all his predecessors together; and was anyone forbidden to enjoy the consequent satisfaction of seeing the captives? Far from it. Wherever Servilius journeyed, he provided the public with the delightful sight of its captured enemies in chains; and crowds gathered in consequence from every quarter to meet him, and came to see the spectacle not only from the towns through which the prisoners passed, but from neighbouring towns as well. And why was his actual triumph in Rome the most welcome and acceptable of all triumphs to our people here? Because nothing is more delightful than victory, and there is no surer evidence of victory than for

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

117

us to see those at the thought of whom we have often trembled led in chains to their execution’).

Perhaps surprisingly, some of our evidence suggests that his campaign was rather unsuccessful.125 In addition, the Fasti Triumphales include the pirates among those over whom Pompeius triumphed in 61.126 The lex de provinciis praetoriis of 100 insisted Romans, as well as allies and friends of Rome, resist piracy and not harbour them and their bases.127 Such a triumph may thus signify another change in Roman warfare. The son of the triumphator also similarly fought pirates: he fought the Cretans, even though allies of Rome, labelled as pirates and allies of Mithridates.128 The precedents for Octavian’s ovation in 36 were, at least in part, the slave wars. Octavian could genuinely claim to have suppressed any form of internal war (App., B Civ. 5.130), but the war was still represented as a slave or pirate war. The civil war element was not denied, but the war qualified for an ovation because it was declared or mainly represented as something else. A similar pattern can be seen in the aftermath of the battle of Actium. The 36 celebrations were in many ways a rehearsal for the triumphs of 29. Yet the question is more complex. In her fascinating new book on Sextus Pompeius, Welch (2012) emphasizes Sextus as a ‘Republican’. However I would suggest that he, along with other principal participants, was first of all an actor in his own right and with his own interests. The fact that Sextus used Republican imagery is hardly conclusive, as the same can be said of the triumvirs.129 Similarly, Welch’s section entitled ‘The Antonian-Republican alliance of 40 and the pact of Brundisium’ (Welch 2012: 230–38) does invite a rather different conclusion: I am not denying that Appian (B Civ. 5.54) suggests an early deal between Antonius and Sextus Pompeius. Appian (B Civ. 5.61-62) does also suggest that the triumvirs disagreed on how to deal with Sextus Pompeius,130 probably because Octavian was angered with Antonius’ interference in Italy, which was his sphere of influence (Suet., Aug. 13.3), and the unfortunate problems with Lucius Antonius in 41–40.131 According to Welch the triumvir Antonius and the so-­called Republican Sextus Pompeius formed some form of alliance even though they were on opposing sides in the war (Welch 2012: 234; contra Gowing 1992: 86). As the rift between Octavian and Antonius deepened – which was resolved at Brundisium, where Sextus Pompeius was made an official enemy132 – there was an added problem of Sextus Pompeius’ blockade of Italy, which was felt in Rome (Dio Cass. 48.31.5). Appian, however, clearly suggests that. Sextus Pompeius was still an enemy.133

118

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

The triumvirs had no choice but to accommodate Sextus Pompeius and in connection with the agreement at Misenum in 39, Sextus Pompeius was granted the provinces of Sicily, Sardinia and Achaea for a five-­year term.134 In return he had to cease raiding mainland Italy and allow the grain supply to Rome to recommence. In 40 Octavian had also married Scribonia, the sister of Sextus Pompeius’ father-­in-law L. Scribonius Libo, sealing the deal.135 The arrangement did not last and by the following year, the entente with Sextus Pompeius had broken down. A new pattern of potential alliances and group fragmentation materialized, as Antonius, as did both Octavian and Sextus Pompeius, wished to maximize chances of victory and survival. Sextus Pompeius was ready to change to what he saw as the winning side and make a deal with the triumvirs. This was not so much a sign of Republican sentiments, but of power and survival. Sextus Pompeius did not represent the ‘Republicans’ and he was certainly playing the same game as Antonius and Octavian. Welch’s conclusion (2012: 235) that Antonius wanted to change to the ‘Republican’ side is misleading. Antonius, later accompanied by Octavian, knew Sextus Pompeius had to be stopped and in the end he saw an opportunity to make a deal with the triumvirs.136 This was an agreement between Sextus Pompeius and the triumvirs rather than between Antonius and the ‘Republicans’, as proposed by Welch. When Cicero gives us a list of the victories (and triumphs) and the different kinds of war that Pompeius fought (Leg. Man. 28), it includes: Civile, Africanum, Transalpinum, Hispaniense, servile, navale bellum, . . . (‘The civil war, the wars in Africa, Transalpine Gaul and Spain, the Slave war and the Naval war, . . .’).

Cicero does not claim that they were pirates, but it is implied: pirates and slaves are thus mentioned together, in a list also containing civil war. Octavian would have been foolish not to claim that Sextus Pompeius was both: a pirate who used slaves in his fighting against the res publica. And there is evidence to suggest that this is what he did. Welch states (2012: 10): The Bellum Siculum is listed as one of the five phases of the civil war in more than one catalogue. The younger Caesar’s victory at Naulochus was originally celebrated as the end of civil hostilities, not as a victory over pirates and slaves (App. B Cic. 5.130). Only later did the victor develop a different rhetoric to describe this phase of the civil war, . . . [cf. 278–9].

Interestingly, the term bellum Naulochense, like the bellum Actiacum named after the theatre of war, never appears in ancient evidence. Rather, the war is called

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

119

bellum Siculum.137 It is celebrated as Sicilia recepta (CIL 3.14625 = ILS 8893) and Propertius (2.1.28) talks of bella classica. This, if anything, suggests a foreign war and implies confusion regarding the character of the war. Welch highlights the following lists of civil wars: Pliny (NH 7.147-149), Suetonius (Aug. 9.1), Lucan (B Civ. 1.43) and the Fasti Amiternini, although the entry for 36 is lost.138 After the war against Sextus Pompeius, Octavian was given an honorific column on the Forum Romanum, with prows (Mylae, Naulochus), a golden statue, and an inscription: ‘Peace, long disrupted by civil discord, he restored on land and sea’ (App., B Civ. 5.130: ‘τὴν εἰρήνην ἐστασιασμένην ἐκ πολλοῦ συνέστησε κατά τε γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν’).139 No enemy is mentioned, but internal unrest is (see also Chapter 6). Looking at the Fasti Triumphales entry for 36, a similar picture emerges: Imp. Caesar Divi f. C. f. II, IIIvir r(ei) p(ublicae) c(onstituendae) II, ovans ex Sicilia idibus Novembr. a. DCCXVII [Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569; Fasti Barb.: Degrassi 1947: 342–3: [e]x Sicilia].

Again, the enemy is unmentioned, because mentioning a civil war enemy would have been in clear breach of triumphal conventions. Ex Sicilia solved the problem, and highlighted that this was not just a naval battle, but a campaign on both land and sea for supremacy of Sicily. At the same time Octavian sought to claim to have accomplished the triumviral assignment, including the ending of the civil war.140 With such an inscription, by saying very little about the actual enemy, he could claim both. The laurelled letter in 36 will, I assume, have been close to the inscription on the column. The Res Gestae (25.1) is revealing on this matter: mare pacavi a praedonibus. eo bello servorum qui fugerant a dominis suis et arma contra rem publicam ceperant triginta fere millia capta dominis ad supplicium sumendum tradidi. (‘I brought the sea under control from pirates. In this war I handed back to their masters for punishment almost 30,000 captured slaves who had run away from their masters and taken up arms against the state’) [Trans. Cooley 2009. Cf. Strabo 3.2.5: suppression of piracy and peace].

The Res Gestae not only mentions the pacification of the sea from pirates, but also the pacification and extension of the provinces, and securing the borders (RG 26–33). Augustus thus ended the civil war (RG 34.1), the text of the Res Gestae echoing both his triumviral and imperial assignments.141 Both pirates and slaves are mentioned, while Sextus Pompeius unsurprisingly is not: indeed no enemy is mentioned by name in the Res Gestae. However, in 88 Sulla used a similar rhetoric

120

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

against Marius: the enemy had allegedly provoked a slave revolt.142 One may even claim that pirates and slaves, even if they do not constitute civil opponents (they are not cives), are a product of civil discord, which is an internal problem.143 Therefore Octavian received an ovation, not a triumph. Indeed, the slaves are defeated – taking up arms against the res publica (arma contra rem publicam), thus echoing RG 2 and the assassins of Caesar. Looking again at comparative cases, the turn of the century had seen both pirate and slave wars.144 There can thus be no doubt that the war against Sextus Pompeius was also a civil war, but as an exclusively civil war it could produce neither a triumph nor an ovation (Val. Max. 2.8.7) and to do so would further hamper Octavian’s justification of the war. The ovation may imply a slave war, not necessarily a pirate war, but Octavian no doubt used the perils of both in his justification of the civil war against Sextus Pompeius. The evidence suggests that Naulochus was hailed as both a war against slaves and pirates, and also echoed the triumviral assignment: peace after civil war. This civil war was later reignited by Antonius when he aided Cleopatra. This way 36 becomes the obvious precursor of Actium. The Fasti Triumphales entry says ex Sicilia, remaining as vague as was possible. The question arises, therefore, as to why pirates and slaves are mentioned in the RG, when he could have said nothing or very little. In all likelihood Augustus had already used two forms of justification in 36, one for the ovation and another for the triumviral assignment, as he did in connection with the triumphs of 29 (Actium and Alexandria). Octavian did not claim the conflict was not a civil war, as this would have been absurd, only that it was ex Sicilia. For a celebration there also needed to be a ’non-­civil’ enemy and slaves and pirates could serve as such. Political justification was only one aspect of this rhetoric. The notion of dehumanizing the enemy has long been a standard way to persuade people to kill their fellow citizens. Language is one of many sophisticated ways to overcome this instinctive human aversion.145 Ending the civil war was important politically as well as on a human level, but in contrast to pirates and slaves, the maintenance of peace after civil war was considerably more problematic if soldiers were inured to the killing of fellow citizens. It is without doubt easier to kill somebody with no legitimate position: slaves and pirates had no such legitimate position and importantly, were non-­state-actors. As Shaw suggests in his classic article on ‘bandits’, – those who use private violence and thus threatened the state – this involves notions of social inferiority.146 Political justification and military necessity thus go together. The idea of ‘constructing’ the enemy was and still is an important part of warfare.147 Cicero, writing just after the murder of Caesar, at a time when he had

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

121

left politics, discusses the status of pirates.148 While considering the rules regulating warfare, he suggests that a pirate was not included in the number of lawful enemies: nam pirata non est ex perduellium numero definitus, sed communis hostis omnium (‘For a pirate is not included in the number of lawful enemies, but is the common foe of all the world’; Off. 3.107, cf. Gell. 5.6.20-22). An oath given to a pirate could, he claims, be broken, contrary to conventional warfare in which the enemy should be treated justly.149 This certainly conflicts with the fact that triumphs were awarded during the Late Republic for victories against this allegedly unlawful enemy. In fact both pirates and slaves (bellum servile) are mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales, even if slave wars only warranted an ovation. The Romans saw these wars as regular warfare, as bellum iustum, fought against lawful opponents. Roman warfare changed, but triumphs were still granted: the enemy increasingly consisted of pirates and slaves in place of foreign states, in reality or by use of stereotype. But in a Roman context pirates and slaves still were preferable to civil war should a commander desire a triumph. Cicero may have thought this in breach of the mos maiorum, but this was not at all untypical for the upheaval of the Late Republic. For Octavian, constructing Sextus Pompeius as a pirate who used slaves served to both dehumanize the enemy, yet still offer an opportunity for triumphs. Nevertheless, all knew that this was a rhetorical construct, that this was in reality a civil war. Octavian never claimed otherwise: on the contrary, in 36 he accepted that he had ended internal war. When he became the enemy of the triumvirs, Sextus Pompeius was presented as an enemy of Rome: the rhetoric of pirates and slaves provided an ideal critique, complementing the need to end the civil war.

Actium: the end of the Late Republican civil war The single most important piece of ancient evidence for the ideology of Augustus is the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.150 The chapters of the RG should be read as Augustus’ justification for his actions. He mentions civil and foreign wars in chapter 3.1: bella terra et mari civilia externaque toto in orbe terrarum saepe gessi (‘I have often conducted wars by land and sea, civil and foreign, across the whole world’ (trans. Cooley 2009)). The ending of the civil wars is prominently mentioned in RG 34.1: in consulatu sexto et septimo, postquam bella civilia extinxeram . . . (In my sixth and seventh consulship, after I had put an end to the civil wars . . .).

122

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

The ending of the civil wars, as mentioned in RG 34.1, must include Actium (RG 25.2) as part of the triumviral assignment.151 The adversary in chapter 24.1 is Antonius, and the oath for the war at Actium (RG 25.2) is again mentioned prominently in RG 34.1, with clear reference to the oath of 32. Here it is described as consensus, in the same sentence as civil war. Egypt is mentioned in RG 27.1 as a foreign expansion, and thus the victory over Egypt and Cleopatra cannot constitute the ending of the civil wars as mentioned in RG 34.1, at least not in the official ideology of the regime. Actium is thus also a civil war in the Res Gestae, but it was as a foreign war against Egypt and Cleopatra that it became eligible for a triumph.152 Of course, none of our sources refer to an enemy from Actium as being paraded in triumph.153 RG 4.1 records triumphal matters including the triple triumph of 29. Less controversial than the triumph decreed to Caesar in 48, all of Octavian’s triumphs and ovations were voted to him by the Senate before he returned, on learning of his successes – so without the indignity of his having to request them in person.154 This is clearly the case for the Actian and Alexandrian triumphs (Dio Cass. 51.19.1, 5).155 The returns of Caesar and Octavian constitute a change to the known pattern of triumphal return, as they did involve meeting with the Senate outside the pomerium. As I have suggested elsewhere, Actium was considered as both a foreign and civil war in the official ideology of the regime.156 In contrast, traditional interpretations of Augustan ideology represent the conflict only as a foreign war against Egypt and Cleopatra, while acknowledging that in reality it was also a civil war.157 There can be no doubt that the war, when it finally came, was represented as a foreign war; the spear rite of the fetiales was performed by Octavian in person in 32, as a fetial, at the Temple of Bellona on the Campus Martius.158 According to Santangelo (2013: 262): A useful parallel may be found in the revisitation of the fetial procedure in 32, at the beginning of the war with Antony and Cleopatra, which was based on a series of minor but significant changes to the old ceremony and also conveyed the message that the war was an external, not a civil one.

However the matter is more complex. With the fetial procedure Octavian successfully avoided starting a new civil war. But there were Romans helping Cleopatra, fighting against Rome, and these citizen-­traitors automatically became enemies of the state when taking up arms against Rome. At the same time they, by their actions, turned a foreign war into a civil war. Octavian never denied that he fought Antonius.159 Accordingly, Dio Cassius underscores the

Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic

123

official ideology of the Augustan regime when he states that the war was declared against Cleopatra, but was in reality against Antonius (50.4.5). Dio Cassius also states (50.4.3-4) that not only was the war declared against Cleopatra, but that Antonius was not declared a hostis (see also Plut., Ant. 60.1). He was however deprived of all of his powers and of the consulship which he was due to hold in 31.160 Antonius was now a privatus and if he were to take up arms against Octavian and the res publica, he would declare war on the state and thus declare himself a hostis.161 Antonius’ main error was in allowing Cleopatra to remain with his forces in Greece, and thus lend some colour to Octavian’s claim to be defending the fatherland against a foreign aggressor. With Cleopatra so close to Italy it was easy to declare a foreign war, a war that would automatically turn into a civil war when Antonius and Cleopatra’s forces fought against Rome. Beard is thus wrong to claim that Actium was ‘a victory in a civil war, without even a euphemistic foreign label’.162 As far as we know, Octavian also abstained from directly commemorating the defeat of his citizen opponents in the ceremonies of 36 and 29: we do not hear of any representation of Antonius in the 29 procession, in contrast to Caesar’s African triumph.

Conclusions The honours presented to Octavian after Actium set a precedent for later emperors.163 However, the commemorating of victories in what were partly civil war victories did not begin with Augustus and there is every reason to suggest that civil war became an integral part of the Republican triumphal tradition due to the changing circumstances of the Late Republic. This created and still creates problems of conceptualizing the victories, as there was often a marked blurring of the boundaries between civil and foreign war. However, the ‘sense of an ending’ implicit in the ritual of the triumph was no doubt helpful after a civil war conflict in terms of political justification.164 Both Caesar and Augustus stressed peace after their civil wars, but a peace that was of course the product of victory and triumph (RG 13). In other words, there can be little doubt that by celebrating triumphs over foreign as well as Roman enemies, Caesar’s 46 quadruple triumphs and Octavian’s triple triumph, even when taken together as a celebration (they were different triumphs) signalled and celebrated the end of the civil wars. The principle that triumphs should not be granted for civil wars could only have been voiced in the first century when civil wars broke out. Sulla, although he fought civil wars, only ever celebrated a triumph over an exclusively foreign

124

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

enemy. A decisive change occurred with Pompeius, even if we do not hear of the foreign versus civil issue being raised. However, his triumph was probably justified on the grounds that the enemy soldiers were mostly non-Romans. With Caesar the blurring between civil and foreign war became even more problematic, although his African triumph followed Pompeius’ precedent. Caesar’s actions thus also followed in a tradition which had begun with Sulla and Pompeius. However, Caesar did, provocatively, include representations of the deaths of Scipio in his triumphal procession, and Munda certainly was exclusively a civil war. Declaring Romans hostes, however, created a new dimension to triumph and civil war: it was permissible, as a means of justification, to triumph over them as enemies of Rome. Later the Senate went even further after the siege of Mutina, proposing a triumph not ex Hispania, but over Italy itself. The triumvirs then returned to the earlier practice of representing their civil wars as external. Octavian also conformed to the model established by Caesar’s Juba triumph: he held ovations and triumphs only for civil wars which could be represented as external. The Sicilian war was represented as a slave/pirate war, and accordingly celebrated with an ovation. The Actian and Alexandrian wars were waged ostensibly against the ruler of Egypt, and accordingly merited triumphs. In the end the enemy was omitted altogether for Actium, as two wars within two years against the same enemy may have appeared exaggerated.165 Roman citizens of course fought in these wars on the opposing side, and thus the wars were civil as well as external, something Octavian made no attempt to conceal. There was therefore often a marked difference between the awarding of a triumph for victory over a foreign enemy, and the ways in which a general could actually celebrate that triumph. It was quite possible to include conspicuous civil war connotations. Civil war, one way or another, could be a part of the triumphal celebrations. The developments of the Late Republic do not show that there were no triumphal rules and conventions, as suggested by Beard (2007). Apart from a few exceptions – perhaps mainly justified by declaring Romans public enemies – a general could not expect to triumph after a victory in an exclusively civil war, only for a civil war that could also be represented as a foreign war; it was by nature of their external character that they qualified for a triumph. Nevertheless, at many points during the Late Republic the civil war aspect was a conspicuous part of the triumphal equation.

6

Augustus, Triumph, Civil War, and the Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

‘Augustus triumphed for the defeat of the Egyptian fleet at Actium, and the conquest of Egypt. He suppressed the name of Anthony and his lieutenants; but who did not recollect them at hearing that of Cleopatra?’ [Gibbon 1796: 145]. Greg Woolf, in a statement echoing that of Gibbon, has recently summed up the triple triumph of Octavian as follows: ‘It is difficult for us to imagine the experience of watching the great triple triumph of 29, celebrating his victories in the Balkans, in the campaign of Actium, and in Egypt. But the Spectators knew this meant the end of civil war’ (Woolf 2012: 166). I fully accept this conclusion, but the question remains as to how to relate this conclusion to the ancient evidence and the triumphs of Augustus. One possibility would be to accept the hypothesis that civil war in some ways assumed the role formerly performed by foreign wars. As a result one might add that instead of obscuring the obvious truth that many conflicts during the Late Republic were (at least in part) civil wars, the victors utilized that very detail against their rivals – claiming that their opponents started civil conflicts which they then quelled. Octavian proclaimed to have ended the civil wars, instigated by Antonius, and so brought peace to Rome. This is the reason why civil war is mentioned so prominently in the Res Gestae (3.1, 34.1). Part of this story is well known: after the victory in 31 a ‘damnatio memoriae’ of Antonius took place (Dio Cass. 51.19.3-5), which involved the tearing down or effacing of the memorials of Antonius, declaring his birthday (14 January) dies vitiosus, and forbidding the use of the praenomen Marcus by any of his kin. The birthday is mentioned in the Fasti Verulani: [v]itiosus ex (senatus) c(onsulto). Ant(oni) natal(is).1 The impact of the ‘damnatio memoriae’ is visible in the ancient evidence: Antonius is not mentioned by name in the (surviving) Augustan poetry until in the Aeneid (8.685). But what are the implications of the missing name?

126

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Fig. 6.1  The Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis.

Consensus, both ancient and modern, views civil war as inherently inglorious and, as a result, there could be no honour in representing it visually. A case in point is Zanker’s seminal work Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, which argues that it was a delicate balancing act for Augustus to represent the war as a victory over a foreign enemy without referring to the defeated Antonius.2 The answer to this difficulty no doubt lies in the nature and character of civil war itself, but it may also lie in triumphal conventions. It was by virtue of their external character that the Romans considered their victories as qualifying for a triumph,3 even if some conflicts during the Late Republic were clearly also civil wars. We should thus not expect to find conspicuous representations of civil war. A later example illustrates the problem: the Constantinian panels on the Constantine Arch show the siege of Verona and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and depict Roman soldiers fighting one other. Many scholars believe that this was the first time such a representation appears in Roman art.4 However a Claudian relief shows the battle of Actium, in which Romans conspicuously fight Romans.5 Representations of Actium, even during the Augustan period, do not always overlook the fact that the enemy list included Antonius.6 Indeed, I would claim that the Victory Monument at Actium is a civil war monument, even if this

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

127

may be less visibly conspicuous, due in part to the absence of any opponent. The Constantine arch was a highly conspicuous civil war commemoration, as revealed by its main inscription (see Appendix). Following Hedrick (2000), the Arch of Constantine visibly commemorated Constantine’s victory over Maxentius: the fact that the name of the tyrannus is omitted suggests here that Maxentius was dishonoured, not forgotten. A more subtle approach was used during the Late Republic, lacking visualization, but nevertheless also implying civil war. The unmentioned enemy is central. Therefore it appears that a common pattern during the reigns of Augustus and Constantine was that a nameless enemy would often imply civil war (dependent of course on the historical context).7 After the victory at Mutina, Cicero had Antonius and his followers declared public enemies. There is ambiguity in such a decision: hostes or not, Antonius and his faction were Romans and the conflict was a civil war. The move was perhaps a technicality, but it was one of great importance, as a means of justification. However Cicero demanded more: he proposed that a public monument be built in honour of the fallen at Mutina and in condemnation of the deeds of Antonius. He hoped to reap political gain from the military victory (Phil. 14.35): quam ob rem maximum quidem solacium erit propinquorum eodem monumento declarari et virtutem suorum et populi Romani pietatem et senatus fidem et crudelissimi memoriam belli; in quo nisi tanta militum virtus exstitisset, parricidio M. Antoni nomen populi Romani occidisset. (‘Therefore it will be the relatives’ greatest consolation that by the same monument is declared the valour of their kin, the respectfulness of the Roman people, the good faith of the Senate, and the memory of the cruellest war, a war in which, if there had not existed the signal valour of our soldiers, the name of the Roman people would have perished by Marcus Antonius’ treason’).

Cicero was transforming a civil conflict into a defence for the res publica. There can be little doubt that the monument was voted by the Senate, as Dio Cassius mentions the voting of a public burial (46.38.1-2).8 Nothing, however, suggests that the monument was ever built and it is quite impossible to know how it would have appeared and if there was to be any mention of Antonius or civil war. Dio Cassius may be trusted on senatorial decrees themselves, but not on whether they were in fact implemented.9 If anything, the proposal of Cicero and the triumph voted to Decimus Brutus emphasize the desperate situation.10 The commanders at Mutina may have chosen to copy the mass grave at Pharsalus, as there was little time and the civil war had not yet ended (App., B Civ. 2.82):

128

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

ἐπεὶ δὲ ζητούμενος ἐν τοῖς νεκροῖς εὑρέθη, τὰ ἀριστεῖα ὁ Καῖσαρ αὐτῷ περιέθηκε καὶ συνέθαψε καὶ τάφον ἐξαίρετον ἀνέστησεν ἐγγὺς τοῦ πολυανδρίου. (‘When a search was made amongst for him [i.e. Crassinius)] and he was found among the dead, Caesar adorned his body with the decorations of valour, buried him with them and made a special tomb for him near the mass grave’ (Trans. Carter 1996).

It certainly would have been a monumental commemoration of Roman victory.11 This suggests a blurring of foreign and civil war, dependent of course on any reference to either civil war or Antonius. In any event, this is an example of a civil war victory in part assuming the role formerly performed by foreign wars. In the end it appears that only the two deceased consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, received state funerals and public tombs on the Campus Martius, which would have been the location for the proposed war memorial.12 The remains of the tomb of Hirtius were found in 1938 under the Palazzo della Cancelleria,13 while an inscription found in 1899 belonged to that of Pansa (CIL 6.37077 = ILS 8890). This was a civil war justified by a hostis declaration.14 A declaration, however, that happened after the battle of Mutina. However, this is not reflected in the inscription of the Pansa monument, as no contextual details are included. This example reveals the unprecedented problems in the civil war period after the death of Caesar. The Senate’s decision, as in the granting of a triumph to Decimus Brutus, was in clear breach of (triumphal) conventions never to celebrate civil war victories. Fascinatingly, Cicero played a central if unsurprising role in this dismantling of Republican traditions. The horrors of war of course need to be remembered. During civil war the distinction between ‘Roman’ and ‘enemy’ became blurred, but the devastating impact and repulsion of seeing dead citizens must have had a lasting impact on any viewer, to whichever warring group they belonged.15 A victory was after all not just a victory in civil war. The term bellum civile was usually omitted from commemorations. Indeed, civil wars often carry a semantic confusion. One aspect of this is the portrayal of the enemy. Grillo (2012: 106) suggests: ‘. . . but the civil war required an extra effort to portray the Pompeians as non-Romans and himself as the legitimate custodian of the Republic’. This notion is interesting, but there is more to it. This foreshadows the modern discussion about ‘damnatio memoriae’, as mentioned above: Pompeius is of course still strictly speaking a Roman, but he is a dishonoured Roman.16 This is also similar to discussions about Romans being declared enemies of the state. This confusion I believe is related to the modern

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

129

idea, a standard view today, that ‘Civil war often refuses to speak its name’.17 The American Civil War was called ‘War of the Rebellion’ or ‘The Second American Revolution’, depending on the perspective. Similarly, the second Iraq-­conflict and the Afghanistan conflict are often named using operational labels ‘insurgency’ and ‘counterinsurgency’, even if they are, at least to some extent, also civil wars.18 In fact the extraordinary element in Roman history is that the word ‘civil war’ was accepted and used positively, in order to legitimize these internal victories.19 But reference to civil war was often avoided if possible. This does not, however, suggest that these wars were only foreign wars, nor were they claimed to be. This blurring of military and political activity is common in contemporary conflicts, as it was in the civil war periods in Rome. Initiating a civil war was inexcusable; fighting one certainly not so. At no point during the Late Republic is this use of different rhetorical strategies more visible than in connection with the battle of Actium, to which we must now turn in order to describe the semantic confusion surrounding civil war victories and triumphs.

Actium as a civil war Most modern scholars may still agree that Octavian’s victory at the battle of Actium over Antonius and Cleopatra in 31 was a civil war presented as a foreign war, which is to say that in the official ideology it was not a civil war at all. In contrast, as mentioned already, I have previously argued that Actium was considered as both a foreign and a civil war in the official ideology of the regime.20 Traditionally the enemy would be mentioned, as this was an integrated part of the justification for the triumph (as is evident on the Fasti Triumphales), but since Actium was also a civil war the enemy was left unmentioned. It does not follow that civil war was downplayed, due in part to the conspicuous absence of the enemy. Rather, the emphasis had shifted to the victor. There can be no doubt that the war, when it finally came, was represented as a foreign war: the spear rite of the fetiales was performed by Octavian in person in 32.21 In this way Octavian successfully avoided starting a new civil war. Antonius was represented as fighting against Rome, to devastating effect for his faction, but to great political effect for Octavian. He developed legitimacy and support, while Antonius undermined himself; and Cleopatra was of course a major problem for Antonius’ claims to legitimacy. Dio Cassius states (50.4.3-5) that the war was declared only against Cleopatra – it is unlikely that the term Antoninianum bellum (Val. Max. 3.8.8) originates in the official ideology22 – and that Antonius

130

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

was not declared a hostis.23 Antonius was now a privatus, having been stripped of all his powers, and if he were to take up arms against Octavian and the res publica, he would declare war on the state and thus make himself a hostis. He and other Romans fighting for Cleopatra would, by their actions, turn a foreign war into a civil war. Octavian never denied that he fought Antonius, but he made it appear that Antonius was the aggressor.24 Again, it was thus in principle permissible, at least as a possible means of justification, to triumph over civil war enemies if they were declared enemies of Rome. Octavian played the game well. During the period from the battle of Actium until the return of Augustus in 29, the Senate passed a number of resolutions, primarily in honour of Octavian’s victories at Actium and Alexandria (Dio Cass. 51.19.1-20.5). The first part of this list (51.19.1-3), relating to honours after Actium, includes an ‘honorific’ or triumphal arch (51.19.1), awarded, according to Dio Cassius, for a victory over Cleopatra. As these honours were given in connection with a victory and a subsequent triumph, the term triumphal arch seems in order, even if the term arcus triumphalis only dates from the third century CE.25 The inscribed Fasti Triumphales (19 BCE) establishes a firm connection here. The first arch given as an honour by the Senate, rather than being solely a private initiative, is the arch awarded to Octavian in 36. Dio Cassius (49.15.1-3) mentions an arch with trophies and then goes on to state that Octavian declined some of these honours. Appian (B Civ. 5.130) lists the honours but does not include the arch mentioned by Dio Cassius. No archaeological evidence supports such an arch after Naulochus. To identify the arch on RIC 12 267 with Naulochus is somewhat unconvincing, and even if it was, this would not prove it to have been built.26 However, the surviving arch on the Forum Romanum presents a problem, in that there are two possible identifications: the Actium or the Parthian Arch. The most reasonable scenario remains that presented by Rich (1998), who suggests that the arch preserved is the Arch of Actium. Later alterations allowed it to accommodate the standards to celebrate the Parthian Settlement.27 It would have been very odd indeed if there was no monument commemorating Actium after 19; that is if the Parthian Arch replaced the demolished Actian arch. This dating of the Arch of Actium creates a possible context for an important inscription found in the sixteenth century in the Forum Romanum, but subsequently lost, which may have come from the arch: SENATUS POPULUSQUE ROMANUS/ IMP(ERATORI) CAESARI DIVI IULI F(ILIO) CO(N)S(ULI) QUINCT(UM) CO(N)S(ULI) DESIGN(ATO) SEXT(UM) IMP(ERATORI) SEPT(IMUM) / RE PUBLICA CONSERVATA.

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

131

(‘The Roman Senate and people to Imperator Caesar, son of the deified Julius, consul for the fifth time, consul designated for the sixth time, imperator for the seventh time, the res publica having been saved’) (CIL VI 873 = EJ 17) [trans. Rich 1998].

Saving the state from the enemy was part of the triumviral assignment. Freeing or saving of the res publica is usually dated to the 1 August 30, the day of the capture of Alexandria: rem publicam tristissimo periculo liberavit.28 This postdates the decision to award Octavian an arch after Actium, but may be seen as an additional honour. As the enemy was the same at both Actium and Alexandria, the ideology of the two victories were of course interwoven and thus this honour refers to the fact that in 29 the state had been saved.29 The res publica was thus saved, but surprisingly the inscription does not say from whom. The enemy is left unmentioned. The inscription is dated to 29, the year of Octavian’s triple triumph and thus this is the year in which the arch was probably completed. It is too small to have been placed on the central arch, but if the monument was triple-­arched the inscription may have been situated on one of the side arches.30 This would also explain why Actium is not mentioned here, as the victory would have been included in the inscription on the central arch, again with no enemy mentioned. Nedergaard suggests that it was attached to the Temple of the Deified Iulius,31 although then it would have honoured Caesar and not Octavian.32 The inscription may even be inclusive, referring to both wars, as is suggested by the omission of an enemy. Had it focused exclusively on Egypt/Alexandria/Cleopatra this would not have been an issue: ex A[egy]pto (Degrassi 1947: 344–5, Fasti Barb.). This refers to an enemy in geographical terms, and would thus imply Cleopatra, as the ruler of Egypt. The reference to the saving of the state from an unmentioned enemy is much more evasive, and therefore may refer to both Cleopatra and Antonius, or to Antonius alone. Once more we see a blurring of foreign and civil war during this period. Re publica conservata may seem rather simple as a description of such a major victory, but it is difficult to imagine another possible explanation. The dating to 29, the reference to the state having been saved, along with parallel evidence, does indeed suggest that the inscription referred to Actium and Alexandria. The reference to the triumviral assignment and the fact that the enemy is not mentioned by name both suggest that the inscription came from the arch. The triumvirate was legitimized as an arrangement for a limited term (five years, later extended for another five years) with the task of setting the state to rights (triumviri rei publicae constituendae): ending the civil war and restoring order.33

132

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

This was accomplished at Philippi and thus further justification was required. In 40 with the pact of Brundisium the triumvirs were tasked with defeating Sextus Pompeius and acting against Parthia. Octavian completed his task in 36, but Antonius failed in his Parthian campaign. Both men now promised to relinquish their triumviral powers, which finally occurred after the battle of Actium with the settlement of 28–27.34 Saving the state from the enemy was part of this assignment, even if the enemy in question changed over time. Comparable examples of opponents conspicuous by their absence can be seen on the arches of Septimius Severus and Constantine (see Appendix). This may indeed suggest that the arch of Actium was the model for the inscriptions on later arches. In the Res Gestae, composed towards the end of his life, Augustus unsurprisingly continued this trend of not mentioning his adversary by name (RG 1.1): annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato consilio et privata impensa comparavi, per quem rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in libertatem vindicavi. (‘Aged nineteen years old I mustered an army at my personal decision and at my personal expense, and with it I liberated the state, which had been oppressed by a despotic faction’) [trans. Cooley 2009].

Augustus claims that Antonius had oppressed the res publica through the tyranny of a faction.35 Cicero famously wrote (Att. 14.14.2, May 44): sublato enim tyranno tyrannida manere video. nam quae ille facturus non fuit ea fiunt (‘It is clear that after the removal of the tyrant the tyranny remains. Things are done [by Antonius] which he [Caesar] had no intention of doing’ (trans. Shackleton Bailey 1967)). Liberating the state from the faction legitimized the act of the raising of an army. The ‘betrayal’ of libertas is used as a denouncement of the defeated faction. Pompeius and Caesar had done the same,36 as had Sulla before them (App., B Civ. 1.57). Of course, Octavian could only earn a triumph when Actium was deemed a foreign war. Nevertheless, the reference to the tyranny of a faction carried clear connotations of civil war, and was described as such because Antonius was not declared a hostis. The Fasti Triumphales entry for the joint ovation of Antonius and Octavian from 40 sheds more light on this:37 at Brundisium tensions between Antonius and Octavian grew and for a time it seemed that further civil war might ensue. However, the soldiers were reluctant to fight one other, leading to the treaty of Brundisium. The soldiers will have acclaimed the peace-­making generals, and this will have been followed by their joint ovation as a symbol of

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

133

reconciliation.38 The triumvirs were given the ovation for avoiding civil war. Thus civil war was avoided between Antonius and Octavian in 40, terminated after Sextus Pompeius was defeated by Octavian in 36, only to be instigated anew by Antonius, helping Cleopatra, and then finally suppressed by Octavian after Actium (RG 34.1). In 36, after the war against Sextus Pompeius, Octavian, as mentioned earlier, was given an honorific column on the Forum Romanum, with prows (Mylae/ Naulochus), a golden statue, and an inscription: ‘Peace, long disrupted by civil discord, he restored on land and sea’.39 After Actium the same concept appeared on the inscription of the Victory Monument at Nicopolis. Using the same phrase as the inscription mentioned by Appian (pace parta terra marique), the enemies – Antonius and Cleopatra – are omitted. By doing so Octavian became the guarantor of internal peace – the one person who had the power to do so, as the state ruler. I strongly suspect that the central inscription of the Arch of Actium was closely modelled on that on the Victory Monument at Actium.40 The arch in Rome was awarded by the SPQR (Dio Cass. 51.19.1), while the Nicopolis monument was built by Octavian himself, so it is extremely unlikely that an enemy would have been mentioned. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the inscription came from this monument. Before turning to the Victory Monument at Actium, it is time to look at some contemporary fasti municipales.

Fasti municipales The Roman fasti are calendars, but the word pertains to lists of eponymous chief magistrates.41 The consuls of Rome gave their name to the year, the most famous being the Fasti Consulares, part of the Fasti Capitolini after their modern location, together with the Fasti Triumphales, in the Capitoline museum, Palazzo dei Conservatori.42 The earliest surviving fasti (Antium) from 55 is in fact both a consular list and a calendar.43 One of the fasti municipales, namely the Fasti Amiternini, is of special interest here.44 These local fasti were probably erected to display the Roman Imperial calendar rather than local religious practices.45 As this next section will show, this could include a considerable amount of local autonomy.

The Fasti Amiternini The fasti presents a list of wars and chief magistrates, not all of which earned triumphs, such as Philippi and Perusia. Philippi is later mentioned in the Res

134

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Gestae (2), albeit indirectly, whereas Perusia is not; Naulochus is the only civil war the Res Gestae records in the years between Philippi and Actium.46 The Fasti Cuprenses mentions the war at Perusia, but here the enemy is unnamed (Degrassi 1947: 244). I would like to suggest that they were not purposely ‘forgotten’ in the Res Gestae, but simply left unmentioned because they were far easier to accept and explain. In the official ideology of the regime of Augustus they were necessary wars; but it was not necessary to mention that they were civil wars. The wars actually mentioned in the Res Gestae were different, especially Naulochus, Actium and Alexandria. They were problematic due to being partly civil wars that won triumphs. Thus justification was required, which is precisely what the Res Gestae does. Philippi did not produce a triumph, but is nevertheless mentioned, as avenging Caesar was the duty of his son Octavian, and could also be integrated as part of the triumviral assignment. Only fragments survive of the Fasti Amiternini, but they are highly informative. The inscription probably dates to 28, as there are two visible entries after 30.47 The entry for 44 mentions the consuls, the suffect-­consul and Caesar, dictator, before turning to the battle of Mutina: . . . [Bellu]m civil(e) Mutinese cum M. [A]ntonio [Degrassi 1947: 170–71].

The entries for 43 to 31 are similar (Degrassi 1947: 170–71): 43 BCE: . . . bellum in cam[p]is Ph[ilippicis] [cum] M. Brut[o] e[t C. C]a[ssio] 42 BCE: . . . bellum Perusinu[m cum] L. An[o]nio 32 BCE: . . . bellum Acties(e) class[iar(ium)] cum M. Antonio (cf. Amm. Marc. 22.16.24: bellum navale (Actium bello navali Antonio et Cleopatra)).

The dating is somewhat confusing: it appears that the practice is to place the wars (in large letters) before the year to which they relate. Thus its implied dates are (correctly): Mutina 43, Philippi 42, Perusia 41 and Actium 31. It departs from this for the entry for 30, where the war is sandwiched between the suffecti (Antistius Vetus and the Younger Cicero: 1 July and 13 September marks the beginning of the consulship), so providing, it seems, a precise dating within 30 (Degrassi 1947: 510): [Imp. C]ae[sar Divi f. IIII] M. Licinius Crassus suf(fecti) C. Antistius Vetus bell[um classia]r(ium) confect(um) [M. T]ullius Cicero [L. Sae]nius L.f. [Degrassi 1947: 170–71; CIL 9.4191 (Mommsen), CIL I2 p. 61 (Henzen)].

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

Fig. 6.2  The Fasti Amiternini.

135

136

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

This practice of making a war a heading for the respective year is also followed by the Republican war entries in the Fasti Consulares.48 The Fasti Cuprenses is different, in terms of its entry for Actium, but is a parallel text in as far as it is a list of wars (Degrassi 1947: 244–5). However, this is not without its problems: the Fasti Cuprenses also mentions Actium in 32 as the Fasti Amiternini, but in between the consuls and the suffect-­consuls of the year 30.49 The Fasti Venusini on the other hand has a precise chronology. There are other issues to be considered. Alföldy (1991: 169) is right to propose that Alexandria was hardly a naval war and thus rightly dismisses Degrassi’s reconstruction. Another alternative would instead have read [ALEXAND]R(INUM), but this is also dismissed by Alföldy due to lack of space (Alföldy 1991: 169; cf. Rosenberger 1992: 61–2). He wisely suggests that the entry for 30 makes most sense if it is related to something that did not begin during that year, emphasizing ‘confect(um)’ (Alföldy 1991: 169; cf. Rosenberger 1992: 62). No other wars are described as being ended. As Actium and Alexandria were in principle one and the same war, although in different theatres and producing two triumphs, it seems likely that this was the war that ended but did not begin the fighting. The entry for 30 suggests that this war was looked upon as a prolonged conflict; Alexandria ended the war, even if Actium was the decisive battle.50 Alföldy concludes that the entry probably read (Alföldy 1991: 171): bell[a civilia p(opuli)] R(omani) confect(a). The ending of the civil wars was certainly prominent in the Augustan ideology and thus is rather fitting for a list of (civil) wars. According to Alföldy (1991: 169) Egypt thus become part of a prolonged period of war and the year 30 marks the end of the civil wars, whereas external wars ended in 29, symbolized by the closing of the Temple of Janus.51 This does however produce a new problem, as both Actium and Alexandria merited triumphs, in principle given for foreign wars. The answer was simple: the enemy was omitted for Actium, and only a geographical reference was given, whereas Alexandria was unproblematic, Antonius or not, due to the presence of Cleopatra/Egypt. Two wars within two years against the same enemy would have appeared exaggerated, and thus Actium, the turning point of the war, was simply left without a named enemy. This becomes even more apparent in chapter 34.1 of the Res Gestae: in consulatu sexto et septimo, postqua[m b]el[la civil]ia extinxeram (‘In my sixth and seventh consulship, after I had put an end to civil wars’). There is no precise indication of when the civil wars ended. Augustus was once more deliberately ambiguous, as the wars at Actium and indeed Alexandria were both part of the ending of the civil wars. He may refer to the triumphs of 29, celebrating of course both victories.

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

137

This focused on the positive outcome: the civil war was meant to be extinct, gone forever, never to return. The modern confusion is also found in the parallel ancient evidence on the ending of the civil war: Velleius Paterculus (2.89.3) has a civil war period of twenty years, while Livy has twenty-­one, concluding with the triple triumph of 29 (Per. 133; cf. Eutr. 7.8.1; Oros. 6.20.1), although such differences also depend on the lack of a precise date for the start of the civil wars. The year 29 appears reasonable with the celebration of the triple triumph, even if the fighting ended in 31 and 30 respectively. To accept 30 as the ending of the civil war, even if Antonius died that year, is more problematic. This is however the point chosen by Velleius Paterculus (2.87.1; 2.88.1; cf. 2.90.1; Flor. 2.2.1). Whatever date is preferred, these events were all connected to the ending of the civil war and the accomplishment of the triumviral assignment.52 A problem does, however, remain with Alföldy’s reconstruction: why are Egypt and Cleopatra not mentioned? The ending of the civil war was vital in the ideology of the regime, but the triumphs were in principle given for foreign wars. The Fasti Amiternini is a list of wars, not of triumphs, but the rhetorical strategy of the new regime was to include, if anybody, Cleopatra in connection with the war in 30, and avoid mentioning Antonius. It is unlikely that a list of wars was drawn up that failed to mention a foreign enemy for a war that produced a triumph.53 And we must not forget that the Fasti Amiternini announces something that the other local fasti do not, at least not quite so conspicuously: the civil wars. This view is supported by lists of civil wars, first and foremost that of Suetonius (Aug. 9.1; cf. Luc.1.43), who writes as follows: bella civilia quinque gessit: Mutinense, Philippense, Perusinum, Siculum, Actiacum; e quibus primum ac novissimum adversus M. Antonium, secundum adversus Brutum et Cassium, tertium adversus L. Antonium triumviri fratrem, quartum adversus Sextum Pompeium Cn. filium. (‘The civil wars which he waged were five, called by the names of Mutina, Philippi, Perusia, Sicily, and Actium; the first and the last of these were against Marcus Antonius, the second against Brutus and Cassius, the third against Lucius Antonius, brother of the triumvir, and the fourth against Sextus Pompeius, son of Gnaeus’).

Actium is mentioned as a civil war, whereas Cleopatra is not mentioned at all, even though Octavian fought both of them in the two wars (or more correctly, Cleopatra and Antonius were enemies in the same war, but a war that produced two triumphs). Suetonius, writing at a later date, can mention the very points

138

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Augustus chose to avoid. For his part, Augustus highlighted ending the civil war in order to justify the triumvirate while at the same time claiming a triumph for Actium. Therefore, the enemy was left unmentioned. Avoiding any mention of the enemy allowed him to do both; and, of course, everybody knew exactly who the enemy had been anyway. A closer look at other fasti entries reveals a pattern. The Fasti Cuprenses’ entry reads: [bellum Actie]nse (Degrassi 1947: 244–5); while that on the Fasti Venusini reads: bellum Acti(ense).54 They both use a short form and no enemy is mentioned, in contrast to the Fasti Amiternini, but similar to RG 25.2, which focuses on the war ad Actium. Whereas the Fasti Amiternini is dated to around 28, the Fasti Cuprenses has a surviving entry from 14 CE,55 and the Fasti Venusini may be dated to around 16.56 Significantly, the Fasti Amiternini also differs from both the inscription of the Arch of Actium and the inscription of the Victory Monument at Actium (see below). It seems, therefore, that there was considerable local autonomy in the compilation of these notices.57 Thus the Fasti Amiternini is notable for listing the opponents in its civil war notices, and its inclusion of Antonius in its Actium notice is following this practice. Östenberg (2014: 191) emphasizes that ‘it is noteworthy that the names of Octavian’s Roman opponents are spelled out [in the Fasti Amiternini]’ (191). She continues to suggest that it is even more astonishing that the Fasti Praenestini states: Caesar Augustus vicit Philippis posteriore proelio Bruto occiso.58 The vital point is that Philippi did not produce a triumph and thus the enemy Brutus was mentioned.59 For Actium and the other civil wars, that produced triumphs, an altogether different practice was required. The Fasti Amiternini do not allow us to draw any conclusions about Augustan policy. The difference between the Fasti Amiternini and the other local fasti, and indeed the parallel evidence, provides an intriguing problem. Caesar was ambiguous and vague – as was the Senate – in avoiding reference to either enemy or the specific character of the wars, and thus local officials appear to have drawn their own conclusions. The details of the Fasti Amiternini do not, therefore, originate from the regime. Indeed similar variations, although less extreme, appear regarding Alexandria (see EJ, p. 49). As the Fasti Amiternini is the only local fasti to mention the enemy, it stands as the exception. Such an impressive catalogue of civil conflict does appear rather excessive, even if it is a closer reflection of reality. According to Dio 51.19.3-5, the ‘damnatio memoriae’ of Antonius took place before his death, after the battle of Actium. Octavian reversed this on his return to Rome. A focus on Antonius reflected a civil war, but Cleopatra and an

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

139

unnamed enemy at Actium was far better suited to the interests of the new regime. The Senate may even have repeated their actions after Mutina and given a triumph for what they recognized as a civil war. This does not however prove that there was a hostis declaration, as this should have been before the battle of Actium, before Octavian left for Greece. There may therefore have been a change of narrative. The war was declared on Cleopatra, but as this became a civil war Antonius had a role to play. The Senate had no reason to believe otherwise. This was later changed and no enemy was mentioned for Actium. The civil war was of course mentioned prominently elsewhere (RG 3.1, 34.1), but was toned down in connection with the Actian triumph, details restricted to geographical terms, as it was given for a war that was both a foreign and a civil war. In Dio Cassius (51.19) there is a triumph over Cleopatra (for Actium) and for Egypt/Alexandria (Cleopatra again). Significantly, Dio Cassius also stresses that Antonius was not mentioned in either commemoration. Even so, the ending of the civil wars – the purpose of the triumviral assignment – still centred on the battle at Actium. There were thus two narratives: one connected to triumphs and one to the triumviral assignment.60 To recapitulate, the triumph at Actium was vital for Octavian, as the victory in principle ended the civil war begun by Antonius.61 But it was as a foreign war against Egypt and Cleopatra that it became eligible for a triumph. In actual fact the only way Octavian – in terms of political justification – could claim to have accomplished the triumviral assignment, including the ending of the civil war, and, at the same time, acquire a triumph for his victory at Actium, was to omit any mention of the enemy. In the end Octavian chose to focus on the positive outcome of (civil) war – peace and the extinction of civil war was the glorious answer to his problem, as it had already been in 40, with the joint ovation and in 36. The difficulty was exacerbated by the decreeing of a second triumph in 30. The Senate could hardly deny Octavian another triumph after Alexandria, yet to do so highlighted the problematic nature of the first.

The laurelled letter There are clues to the conundrum of the unmentioned enemy. The feriae on the anniversary of the capture of Alexandria on 1 August are recorded on four inscribed calendars. Three give full notices. The Arval Fasti entry reads: feriae ex s(enatus) c(onsulto), [q(uod) e(o) d(ie) Imp(erator) Caesar Divi f(ilius) rem pu]blic(am) tristiss(imo) p[e]riculo [libera]vit.

140

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

(‘Public Holiday by decree of the Senate because on that day Imperator Caesar, son of the god, liberated the res publica from the gravest danger’) [Degrassi 1963: 489].

The fasti of Praeneste and Amiternum have very similar entries (and so enable lacunae on each to be restored). Here, as for other feriae, the fasti cite the reason for the celebration, evidently from the original senatorial decree (EJ, p.  49). Again, there is ambivalence as to the question of how to conceptualize the victories during this period. The source of this ambivalence, or so I believe, is to be found in the laurelled letter of Octavian, which would have avoided mentioning an enemy by name, at least in the case of Actium. It is possible that the Senate even proclaimed a victory over Antonius or both Antonius and Cleopatra, even though the war had been declared on Cleopatra in 32. It was certainly a civil war, but the Senate had a precedent in Mutina. The laurelled letter following the fall of Alexandria may have been similarly vague, referring to tristissimum periculum without further detail, even if in this case the enemy was clearly foreign. But in light of the triumviral assignment, the ending of the civil war may indeed have been 30 (perhaps by SC) and thus the enemy was better left unmentioned. Furthermore, after his second victory in 30 Octavian full well knew that a second triumph would be awarded. The parallel of 36 and the war against Sextus Pompeius provided precedent. After the war against Sextus Pompeius, Octavian was given an honorific column on the Forum Romanum (see above). No enemy is mentioned, but internal unrest is, as discussed in Chapter 5. The Fasti Triumphales entry for 36, suggests a similar picture: Imp. Caesar Divi f. C. f. II, IIIvir r(ei) p(ublicae) c(onstituendae) II, ovans ex Sicilia idibus Novembr. a. DCCXVII [Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569; Fasti Barb.: Degrassi 1947: 342–3: [e]x Sicilia].

Again, the enemy is unmentioned, because mentioning a civil war enemy would have been in clear breach of triumphal conventions. ex Sicilia suffices. At the same time however Octavian wished to stress his accomplishing of the triumviral assignment, including the ending of the civil war.62 By saying very little about the actual enemy he could claim both. The laurelled letter in 36 will, I assume, have very been close to the inscription on the column. The Res Gestae (25.1) is also enlightening:63 mare pacavi a praedonibus. Eo bello servorum qui fugerant a dominis suis et arma contra rem publicam ceperant triginta fere millia capta dominis ad supplicium sumendum tradidi.

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

141

(‘I brought the sea under control from pirates. In this war I handed back to their masters for punishment almost 30,000 captured slaves who had run away from their masters and taken up arms against the state’) [Trans. Cooley 2009. Cf. Strabo 3.2.5: suppression of piracy and peace].

Both pirates and slaves are mentioned, Sextus Pompeius is not. Thus 36 becomes the obvious precursor to later developments. After Actium Octavian, as in 36, chose to emphasize the importance of his assignment and its accomplishment: the civil strife/war was ended, pirates defeated and slaves returned. The positive outcome was emphasized, as always in laurelled letters and subsequent portrayals of triumphal victories, both which seek justification and self-­aggrandizement. Such a strategy is also highly visible at the Victory Monument erected to celebrate the victory at the battle of Actium.

The Victory Monument at Nicopolis/Actium As the civil wars involved the whole Roman world, and each factious leader had kings and nations for his allies, the triumph openly exposed only those foreign allies, and left to the imagination of the Romans the supplying of the domestic victims which the conqueror had the address to appear willing to

Fig. 6.3  The Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis.

142

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

conceal. Augustus triumphed for the defeat of the Egyptian fleet at Actium, and the conquest of Egypt [Gibbon 1796: 145].

On a hill sacred to Apollo that overlooks Nicopolis stands the Victory Monument of Octavian, a campsite memorial dedicated to Mars and Neptune, which brings together the three gods who helped secure Octavian victory at the sea battle of Actium. Both city and monument were built to commemorate the battle, the city being dedicated in 29. The monument was to symbolize Octavian’s glory and was built by the victor himself.64 Civil war is not visible on the monument’s triumphal relief, in contrast to the Arch of Constantine. Of course, the monument refers to the victory at Actium, but neither Antonius nor Cleopatra is mentioned. Gibbon’s analysis is accurate and later writers have presented similar views, but the question remains as to why the foreign enemy is not emphasized on the inscription of the Victory Monument. Although the inscription is fragmentary, there is nothing which suggests the mention of a foreign, or indeed any, enemy.65 Gurval (1995: 66–7 on the Victory Monument) tries to minimize the importance of both the monument and the battle of Actium itself, but does not convince. Indeed, it is surprising to see how rarely the monument is considered in modern studies on Augustus.66 Although much of it remains unpublished, the monument is an important precursor to the ideology of Augustus and the Ara Pacis Augustae. One recent exception is Pollini (2012: esp. 191–6), although he unfortunately all but ignores the inscription and focuses on the triumphal frieze. Another is Spawforth, who writes (Spawforth 2012: 34): What is striking too about Nicopolis is that Octavian’s choice of vehicle for the perpetual commemoration of a victory which laid the foundations of the principate should be beyond the view of Rome and Italy. Nor was the new foundation an achievement which Augustus chose to record in his Res Gestae. With Nicopolis Augustus evidently considered himself to be addressing primarily a provincial audience.

In the comment on the Res Gestae, Spawforth perhaps misses the point: why should the foundation be mentioned on an inscription which focuses on Rome itself? A close inspection of the inscription itself suggests an altogether different picture: vacat Imp · Caesa]r · Div[i · Iuli · ]f · vict[oriam · consecutus · bell]o · quod · pro [·r]e[·]p[u]blic[a] · ges[si]t · in · hac · region[e · cons]ul [· quintum · i]mperat[or · se] ptimum · pace [·] parta · terra [· marique · Nep]tuno [· et · Ma] rt[i · c]astra [·

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

143

ex · ] quibu[s · ad · hostem · in]seq[uendum egr]essu[s · est · navalibus · spoli]is [· exorna]ta · c[onsacravit vacat (‘Imperator Caesar, son of the Divine Julius, following the victory in the war which he waged on behalf of the res publica in this region, when he was consul for the fifth time and imperator for the seventh time, after peace had been secured on land and sea, consecrated to Neptune and Mars the camp from which he set forth to attack the enemy, now ornamented with naval spoils’) [Murray and Petsas 1989: 76 and 86].67

We find references to the monument in our evidence, suggesting that the monument was well known in Rome itself.68 Suetonius writes (Aug. 18.2): quoque Actiacae victoriae memoria celebratior et in posterum esset, urbem Nicopolim apud Actium condidit ludosque illic quinquennales constituit et ampliato vetere Apollinis templo locum castrorum, quibus fuerat usus, exornatum navalibus spoliis Neptuno ac Marti consecravit. (‘To extend the fame of his victory at Actium and perpetuate its memory, he founded a city called Nicopolis near Actium, and provided for the celebration of games there every five years; enlarged the ancient temple of Apollo; and after

Fig. 6.4  The Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis, with part of the monumental inscription.

144

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

adorning the site of the camp which he occupied with naval trophies, consecrated it to Neptune and Mars’).

There can be little doubt that this was a monument designed to show Octavian’s military might, but Greece was not the enemy, even though almost all the Greek cities fought on the side of Antonius. Greece marked the boundary between the western part of the Empire, centred on Italy, and the east. The war was, as mentioned, declared on Cleopatra (see Dio Cass. 50.4.5). A comparative example can be found at La Turbie, where the defeated enemy, Alpine tribes, are mentioned prominently in a monument dedicated to Augustus by the SPQR (forty-­six named tribes, as a marked contrast to the unmentioned enemy at Actium).69 The inscription from 7–6, erected on a giant trophy monument, begins as follows:70 IMP. CAESARI DIVI FILIO AUG. PONT. MAX., IMP. XIV, TR. POT. XVII, S.P.Q.R., QVOD EIUS DUCTU AVSPICIISQVE GENTES ALPINAE OMNES QVAE A MARI SUPERO AD INFERUM PERTINEBANT SUB IMPERIUM P. R. SUNT REDACTAE. ALPINAE DEVICTAE . . . (‘The Senate and People of Rome (dedicated this arch) to Imperator Caesar Divi f. Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, victorious general for the fourteenth time and holding the tribunician power for the seventeenth time. (They did so) because it was under his leadership and auspices that all of the Alpine tribes stretching from the Adriatic to the Tyrrhenian Sea were brought under the sway of the Roman People. The Alpine tribes that were conquered . . .’).

The famous triumphal inscriptions of Pompeius Magnus similarly describe the defeated enemies at great length.71 At Actium however, there is no enemy, but a victory that brought peace to the region. The monumental inscription is in Latin, not in Greek or bilingual, even though this was purely a Greek city.72 Significantly, in a Greek context it would hardly have been a problem to mention the enemy, certainly not if this was intended to display Roman power to the locals. Rather, this was a Roman monument concerned with the political impact in Rome itself. The monument displayed rams as trophies of war. The rams as well as the monument itself were proof of victory – a victory worthy of a triumph. The monument was, or so I believe, built to justify Octavian’s claim for a triumph, which fits on-­site commemorations as a category. In order to understand how this tradition of trophy monuments came about in Rome, we must briefly look at the earliest example: the Greek model of trophy monuments dates in its Roman form to the second century, with the monuments of Domitius Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus after the defeat of the Arverni

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

145

and the Allobroges in 121.73 After his victory Fabius Maximus built one of the first triumphal arches in Rome (Fornix Fabianus), at the Forum Romanum. According to Florus, the trophies in Gaul were unusual (1.37.6): utriusque victoriae quod quantumque gaudium fuerit, vel hinc aestimari potest, quod et Domitius Ahenobarbus et Fabius Maximus ipsis quibus dimicaverant locis saxeas erexere turres, et desuper exornata armis hostilibus tropaea fixerunt, cum hic mos inusitatus fuerit nostris. numquam enim populus Romanus hostibus domitis victoriam exprobravit. (‘The great joy caused by both of these victories [Allobroges and Arveni] may be judged from the fact that both Domitius Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus set up towers of stone on the actual sites of the battles which they had fought, and fixed on the top of them trophies adorned with the enemy’s arms, even though this custom had been unusual for our people. Formerly the Roman people had not been in the habit of making their victory a matter of reproach to their defeated enemies’) [cf. Strabo 4.1.11; 4.2.3].

The tradition was followed by Pompeius and Caesar and of course Octavian in the Alps and at Nicopolis.74 Such military achievements were increasingly seen as worthy of such commemoration. Itgenshorst suggests that: ‘Die Tatsache, daß Bituitus laut Florus im Triumph des Domitius als Kriegsgefangener gezeigt wurde, während laut Triumphalfasten Fabius über ihn den Triumph feierte, könnte Ausdruck eines Konfliktes zwischen beiden Feldherren sein; dies scheint auch die Nachricht bei Valerius Maximus anzudeuten (s. u.)’ (Itgenshorst 2005: Gesamtkat. Nr. 222, p. 290). This may also explain the difference between entries in the Fasti Triumphales and Livy (Per. 61).75 This may be a question of varying family traditions, or competing claims between rival victors.76 In Livy the descriptions of Domitius and Fabius are segregated: firstly militiae, (including Domitius), then domi (Gracchus), and finally returning to militiae (Fabius). This was the same war and the same enemy, but the implication appears to be that Fabius completed what Domitius had not. It is Fabius, not Domitius, who in Livy ends the war: Cn. Domitius pro cos. adversus Allobrogas ad oppidum Vindalium feliciter pugnavit. quibus bellum inferendi causa fuit, quod Toutomotulum Salluviorum regem fugientem recepissent et omni ope iuvissent, quodque Aeduorum agros, sociorum populi Romani, vastassent. . . . Q. Fabius Maximus consul, Pauli nepos, adversus Allobrogas et Bituitum Arvernorum regem feliciter pugnavit. ex Bituiti excercitu occisa milia CXX; ipse cum ad satisfaciendum senatui Romam profectus esset, Albam custodiendus datus est, quia contra pacem videbatur ut in Galliam remitteretur.

146

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

(‘Proconsul Gnaeus Domitius fought successfully against the Allobroges before the town of Vindalium. The reason for waging war on them was that they received Toutomotulus the king of the Salluvii, when he had fled, and assisted him with all their power; also that they had devastated the land of the Aedui, allies of the Roman people. . . . Consul Quintus Fabius Maximus, grandson of Paulus, fought successfully against the Allobroges and Bituitus, the king of the Arverni. One hundred and twenty thousand of Bituitus’ army were killed; after the king himself had set out for Rome to make his peace with the Senate, he was placed in custody at Alba, because his return to Gaul seemed not to be in the interest of peace’).

This may suggest that there was competition, probably for triumphal glory, between the two men.77 Whatever the case, in the end both men secured a triumph. Valerius Maximus (9.6.3, on treachery (9.6: De perfidia)) mentions an over-­eagerness for glory: Cn. autem Domitium, summi generis et magni animi virum, nimia gloriae cupiditas perfidum exsistere coegit (‘Cn. Domitius, a man of the highest lineage and of lofty spirit, was driven into treachery by his over-­ eagerness for glory’).78 This corresponds to the rather strange story that Ahenobarbus engaged in a triumph-­like procession in Gaul (Suet., Ner. 2.1: at in consulatu Allobrogibus Arvernisque superatis elephanto per provinciam vectus est turba militum quasi inter sollemnia triumphi prosequente (‘Then having vanquished the Allobroges and the Arverni in his consulship, he rode through the province on an elephant, attended by a throng of soldiers, in a kind of triumphal procession’)). Perhaps Ahenobarbus did not feel that his triumph was secured, and conceivably rightly so, having left it to Fabius Maximus to end the war (supported by his name Allobrogicus, see Vell. Pat. 2.10.2). This does appear to be part of the quarrel between the two victors over who did what and defeated whom, and both certainly sought triumphs. As for Octavian, he will have sent a laurelled letter to the Senate after his victory at Actium. The famous phrase pace parta terra marique, used by Octavian in 36, here becomes a central part of the mythology of Actium. Normally the inscription is dated to 29 due to the phrase, echoing the closing of the Temple of Janus in 29,79 and due to the imperatorial acclamations: number six came after Actium and number eight in 25, thus suggesting that the Alexandrian acclamation was the seventh. This gives us a date between 30 August and 16 January 27, when he received the title Augustus. However a precise chronology of the phrasing of the inscription is more complicated. The closing of the Temple of Janus was probably decreed just after the battle of Actium and is part of a list of honours mentioned by Dio Cassius

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

147

(51.20; Lange 2009: 140–48). The slogan had in fact, as already mentioned, previously been used by Octavian after his victory at Mylae (App., B Civ. 5.130). Already here the enemy was conspicuously left unmentioned. Work on the Victory Monument will have begun after the battle of Actium and may have been completed by the time Octavian visited on his journey back to Rome in 29. Moreover, it is curious that the inscription does not mention a triumph, although one is depicted on the triumphal relief (see below). If I am right and the words of the inscription are taken from the laurelled letter of Octavian, and if this was a ‘traditional laurelled letter’,80 Octavian was clearly seeking a triumph. He would have sent a despatch to the Senate in which he reported the victory and requested a supplicatio, and the monument was proof of his victory. All of Octavian’s triumphs and ovations were voted to him by the Senate on learning of his successes before he returned, and thus without Octavian having to request them in person.81 But Octavian clearly felt the need to justify his actions in war. The battle of Actium, even if only a sea battle (the inscription mentions terra marique), would certainly have merited a triumph in both military and political terms. I am unconvinced that Actium was a naval triumph.82 Earlier naval victories had produced triumphs, recorded as such on the Fasti Triumphales. The slogan terra marique does not exclude a naval triumph, on the contrary (naval operations are normally part of land operations), and indeed the battle of Nauolochus in 36, also mainly a naval victory, was commemorated with the already mentioned column with the same slogan and an ovation. That the battle of 36 led to an ovation, not a naval triumph, may suggest that Octavian did not use the naval triumph tradition (the Fasti Triumphales entry for Actium is lost, but it hardly mentioned the enemy). It did not, or so it seems, suit Octavian to celebrate his naval victories with naval triumphs, but he did draw on the iconography of the naval triumph in celebrating them, with rostral columns and the award of the naval crown to Agrippa.83 Significantly, there could in principle be no triumph without pacification. The closing of the Temple of Janus in 29 and the building of the Victory Monument was part of the justification for triumph. Interestingly, here peace becomes more central – or at least as central – as the enemy, unmentioned but ‘highly visible’. As in the Res Gestae (34.1), Octavian focused on the positive outcome of his victory: peace.84 Thus the result of the battle of Actium was that Octavian brought peace to the region, in accordance with the triumviral assignment. The triumvirate was justified as an arrangement for a limited term with the task of setting the state to rights: ending the civil war and restoring order. The inscription from Actium

148

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

also mentions bellum pro re publicae, referring to the triumviral assignment as a means of justification, even if Octavian wisely avoids mentioning the civil war as such and instead focused on the positive outcome.85 However, bellum pro re publica is typical for a civil war setting, as it shows who fought on the right and on the wrong side while not mentioning the enemy by name.86 If 29 is accepted as the date for erecting or updating the inscription, the imperatorial acclamation points to Alexandria. Octavian may imply, similar to Livy 1.19, that the war mentioned as bellum Actiacum covers both Actium and Alexandria. This is also the case in RG 25.2 (‘The whole of Italy of its own accord swore an oath of allegiance to me and demanded me as its commander for the war in which I conquered at Actium’): bellum quo vici ad Actium may include more than a battle. The war ended in 30, but it produced two separate triumphs. The entry on the Fasti Amiternini (if Alföldy’s reconstruction is accepted) does imply 30, even though it is highly problematic: bell[a civilia p(opuli)] R(omani) confect(a). It is perhaps better to situate the date of the Victory Monument as merely a question of chronology rather than claiming a connection with Alexandria. The key point is that the bringing of peace is connected to the ending of the war, here linked explicitly to Actium.87 In addition, the inscription also refers to Octavian as having won in hac regione. This phrase is also rather vague. Actium clearly did not extend the frontiers of the Roman Empire, even though it might be claimed that Greece had been lost for the duration of the war. Here the date becomes important, as both triumphs had been decreed and accepted by the time the inscription was erected. Murray suggests that in hac regione refers to the campaign that ended at Actium (Murray and Petsas 1989: 138). The war, however, ended at Alexandria, even if the most important battle was Actium. The principle that a triumph should be awarded after winning a war can be inferred from Livy (26.21.2-4) in his account of Claudius Marcellus in 211, although there are exceptions.88 As Octavian’s triumphs were awarded whilst he was still in the field, this was altogether different. Whatever the case, Octavian chose not to mention Cleopatra on the inscription of the Victory Monument. The surviving fragments of the monument’s triumphal relief depict ships carried in procession on wheels.89 According to Pollini (2012: 193, and n. 146) a female figure is visible in one of these ships. The material is unfortunately still unpublished, but Pollini suggests that this is some sculptural simulacrum of Cleopatra. This creates a problem, as she, according to Dio Cassius (51.21.8), was part of the Alexandrian triumph. As such, I remain unconvinced that the figure is indeed Cleopatra, but until the piece is published it is impossible to reach any

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

149

Fig. 6.5  The Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis, with part of the monumental inscription: in hac regione.

firm conclusions. The supposed Amazonomachy scene from the monument is perhaps of interest here (Zachos 2003: Fig.  29). If the scene is indeed an Amazonomachy, one wonders why a mythical battle is portrayed rather than an historical scene. It may serve as a reference to Cleopatra,90 thus implying that she was neither shown nor mentioned on the inscription. Once more this may be a case of an enemy that was, if not forgotten, certainly not emphasized. One specific aspect of the relief that has received more than its fair share of attention is the piece depicting Octavian in a triumphal quadriga together with two children, a boy and a girl.91 According to Zachos they are the children of Antonius and Cleopatra, Cleopatra Selene and Alexander Helios, although this interpretation has come under severe criticism.92 An alternative is that they represent Julia and Drusus, as traditionally they would be the children or younger relatives of the triumphing general himself,93 and Suetonius records that Tiberius and Marcellus accompanied the chariot during the Actian triumph (Suet., Tib. 6.4). A further problem is caused by Dio Cassius’ comment that the children of Antonius and Cleopatra were in front of the chariot, as defeated enemies (51.21.7-8).

150

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Fig. 6.6  Triumphal quadriga, from the monumental altar of the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis.

Dio Cassius, however, here is describing the Alexandrian triumph, and thus the children are unlikely to be those of Cleopatra and Antonius. The relief shows the Actium triumph, not the Alexandrian triumph. Neither Antonius nor Cleopatra are mentioned as the enemy on the inscription of the Victory Monument, and even if the children might be proven to depict the children of Antonius and Cleopatra this fact does not change. The enemy was not unknown, but unmentioned. We might date the triumphal relief to the period just after the triple triumph, but in principle it could also be dated to soon after the triumph was decreed or indeed directly after the battle of Actium. The inscription was the justification for the triumph to follow – the triumph of Actium, shown on the relief. The location, the rostra, the inscription and the statues mentioned all suggest that the context, unsurprisingly, is Actium.94 Indeed, rostra are not only found on the monument itself, but also on the relief.95 Murray believes that the rostra used in the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis were spolia from the ships.96 According to Gnoli97 this is extremely unlikely, as the rams were too heavy to

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

151

have been the prow of an ancient ship.98 The rams from the Egadi Islands are eight to twelve times smaller than those reconstructed by Murray.99 Thus the rams from the Nicopolis monument do not appear to be true spolia from the battle. The relief may of course not be an accurate depiction of the triumph and it does therefore not prove that Octavian entered the city of Rome after his second triumph in 29. However the importance of this triumph makes it probable that he entered three times, and indeed the Fasti Triumphales/Barberiniani records separate triumphs. Other readings create further problems. Pollini suggests that ‘. . ., but the fact that the twins were in Rome for the celebration adds to the likelihood that they are the children represented in the chariot with Octavian in the frieze of the Nikopolis Victory Monument’.100 This cannot be entirely refuted.101 He adds that the hairstyle of the girl is similar to that of Cleopatra (Pollini 2012: 194). However, this conclusion overlooks the absence of an enemy on the inscription of the monument. Octavian revealed as little as possible. Dio Cassius (51.21.7-8) claims that the children of Antonius and Cleopatra were led in triumph on the third day,102 and the enemy would hardly have entered twice. Triumphal conventions are too often ignored in these discussions. Hairstyle or not, had children ridden with Octavian in the chariot during the Actian triumph, they would have been his relatives. If the figures on the relief were the children of Antonius and Cleopatra, then it would be telling us much more about the enemy than the inscription – the children could be seen to embody both the civil (father) and foreign (mother) elements of the war. Zachos has recently suggested, following Östenberg’s idea, that the triple triumph was a combined ceremony, that the relief of Actium shows a triplex triumphus.103 Again, the separate entries of the Fasti Triumphales suggest otherwise. Usually there would be only one entry, no matter the number of days the triumph lasted. Augustus has two entries (Actium is missing).104 The suggestion that the children of the enemy represented the clementia of Octavian also creates problems.105 It is hard to see how viewers would know who these children were, and even why they were in, rather than in front of, the chariot. The inscription offers no help and therein lays the main problem. Moreover it does not explain the connection between Actium and Alexandria. One solution might be to accept that the inscription was based on the laurelled letter, whereas the relief in itself carried a wider message. Here the date 29 becomes significant, as the war against Antonius and Cleopatra was over: the peace was honoured at Actium and the ending of civil war corresponds to ideas of clementia. The historical context, however, suggests that the figures are Julia and Drusus, although without reviewing the unpublished material it is difficult to reach any firm conclusion.

152

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

The children of Antonius and Cleopatra clearly were captives. Antyllus, the eldest son of Antonius, and Caesarion, the son of Caesar, were both killed, but her other children were provided for by Octavia.106 Helios disappears from our evidence, but his sister Selene played a role in dynastic politics and was married to Juba of Mauretania.107 Perhaps the relief is later, and reflects the fate of the children, a transition from captivi to friends of Rome. Indeed, Juba II had also been brought to Rome and walked in Caesar’s 46 triumph over his own father. Like Juba before them, in the triumphal context the children of Antonius and Cleopatra were captivi. In conclusion, the inscription was erected circa 29, probably once the monument was most completed, and may have been inaugurated by Octavian on his journey back to Rome. However, the text in itself was earlier, composed by Octavian as part of his laurelled letter, announcing his victory and repeating a slogan from 36. The monument operates as Octavian’s justification for a victory in what was also a civil war – a victory that produced a triumph, the foreign enemy being Cleopatra, the internal Antonius. As Alexandria also produced a triumph against Egypt – this would have been known when the inscription was set up and the monument inaugurated – Octavian chose to leave the enemy unmentioned at Actium. The laurelled letters from Actium and Alexandria were both vague, which has caused both ancient and moderns difficulties in conceptualizing these victories, and indeed even how to distinguish them. Parallel examples of entries for triumphs in the Fasti Triumphales without an enemy do exist: the triumvir Lepidus’ triumphed ex Hispania,108 Caesar’s triumph was no doubt recorded the same way as simply ex Hispania (although we lack the Fasti Triumphales entry), and Octavian returned to Rome in 36, entering the city ex Sicilia (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569). These are not the only entries in the Fasti Triumphales lacking an enemy, but they stand out as having been won in what was at least in part civil wars. The triumph at Actium was crucial for Octavian, as the victory in principle ended the civil war begun by Antonius.109 But it was still as a foreign war against Egypt and Cleopatra that it became eligible for a triumph, and thus civil war is not visible on the triumphal relief. Indeed, the lack of any enemy means that the inscription specifies neither civil nor foreign war, an ambiguity which remains even if the children are accepted as those of Antonius and Cleopatra. Such vagueness implies civil war. The only way Octavian could claim to have accomplished the triumviral assignment, including the ending of the civil war, and, at the same time, acquire a triumph for his victory at Actium, with Cleopatra as the enemy, was to omit the enemy/enemies altogether. The enemy may have been visible in some form on the relief, but it is

The Victory Monument at Actium: A Reconsideration

153

absent, or at most implied in the inscription. An inscription from Aphrodisias supports this conclusion:110 vac. αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ θεοῦ Ἰουλίου υἱὸς Αὔγουστος Σαμίοις ὑπὸ τὸ ἀξίωμα ὑπέγραψεν ἔξεστιν ὑμεῖν αὐτοῖς ὁρᾶν ὅτι τὸ φιλάνθρωπον τῆς ἐλευθερίας οὐδενὶ δέδωκα δήμῳ πλὴν τῷ τῶν [Ἀφροδεισιέων] ὃς ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ τὰ ἐμὰ φρονήσας δοριάλωτος διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὔνοιαν ἐγένετο οὐ γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον τὸ πάντων μέγιστον φιλάνθρωπον εἰκῇ καὶ χωρὶς αἰτίας χαρίζεσθαι ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμεῖν μὲν εὐνοῶ καὶ βουλοίμην ἂν τῇ γυναικί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν σπουδαζούσῃ χαρίζεσθαι ἀλλὰ οὐχ ὥστε καταλῦσαι τὴν συνήθειάν μου· οὐδὲ γὰρ τῶν χρημάτων μοι μέλει ἃ εἰς τὸν φόρον τελεῖτε vac. ἀλλὰ τὰ τειμιώτατα φιλάνθρωπα χωρὶς αἰτίας εὐλόγου δεδωκέναιv οὐδενὶ βούλομαι. (‘Imperator Caesar Augustus, son of divus Julius, wrote to the Samians underneath their petition: You yourselves can see that I have given the privilege of freedom to no people except the Aphrodisians, who took my side in the war and were captured by storm because of their devotion to us. For it is not right to give the favour of the greatest privilege of all at random and without cause. I am well-­disposed to you and should like to do a favour to my wife who is active in your behalf, but not to the point of breaking my custom. For I am not concerned for the money which you pay towards the tribute, but I am not willing to give the most highly prized privileges to anyone without good cause’) (Trans. Reynolds 1982).

Once again, no enemy is mentioned: ‘the Aphrodisians, who took my side in the war’ once more says as little as possible; of course, all knew who the enemy was, so there was little need to mention names. Octavian chose to focus on the positive outcome of (civil) war – peace was the glorious answer to his conundrum, first and foremost because of the triumviral assignment. In other words, the war had clearly defined enemies in Antonius and Cleopatra, but the victory celebrations for Actium, including the triumph, did not. Nevertheless, the Victory Monument remains a highly conspicuous civil war commemoration, as implied by the very absence of an enemy, and also stands as a precursor to Augustan ideology.

7

Triumphal Topography: Augustus’ Triumphal and Triumph-­like Returns The triumphal procession advanced from the Circus Flaminius, crossed the pomerium at the Triumphal Gate and culminated at the Capitoline Hill. A similar pattern of celebration appeared in non-­triumphal returns: magistrates would usually be accompanied by crowds when departing (profectio) and returning (reditus) to Rome.1 The importance of reditus is revealed by Cicero, describing his own return from exile.2 Here he focuses on his reception, which he even presents as comparable to that of a triumph and in mocking contrast to L. Piso’s low-­key return from his Macedonian command, when Piso allegedly sneaked in at night.3 In contrast, every municipium and colonia greeted Cicero on his way home as in triumph (51). Cicero’s return culminated not on the Capitoline but at his own house (52), where Clodius had erected a shrine to Libertas after Cicero was banished. Piso’s return may have been through any gate bar the triumphal, which according to Cicero normally always stood open to consuls governing Macedonia, known as a good place to earn a triumph. Piso’s return was the very antithesis of triumphal. During the Principate the emperor’s arrivals in Rome and other cities became opportunities for the display of gratitude and loyalty by subjects, a ritual of consensus.4 The transformation of the Roman political system in the Late Republic led to a corresponding transformation in the function and character of the triumph. All of Octavian’s triumphs and ovations were voted to him by the Senate before he returned, on learning of his successes – thus without the indignity of his having to request them in person.5 In contrast, but part of the same development, Augustus’ non-­triumphal returns after 29 are probably related to his declining of triumphs. The Senate responded to this by bestowing triumphal honours associated with his triumph-­like returns: they became substitute-­honours replacing the triumph proper. Refusal to triumph had implications for the returns of the princeps, as he had to enter the city by alternative routes, not the Porta Triumphalis, but without relinquishing a ceremonial entry. Apart from

156

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

the use of the Triumphal Gate, the returns of Augustus after 29 are extremely similar to the triumphal entries in 29. These entries, however, allowed Augustus the possibility to locate geographical and ideological markers, in monumental form, at the main entrances of the city, north and south.6 By analysing Augustus’ returns, this chapter will focus on their role within the wider ideological framework of his reign.7 It will argue that Augustus’ movements across the pomerium, in triumph as well as in triumph-­like celebrations, are central to the ideology of the Augustan regime.8 Furthermore, Augustus initiated the process of defining the adventus of the emperor. Accompanied by friends and well-­ wishers, Augustus would cross the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, and thus move from the civil to the military sphere and vice versa.9 Whereas the actual crossing of the pomerium was a defining ritual of magistrates in Republican times, during the Principate it became a ritual coupled almost exclusively with the entries of Augustus.

The triumviral assignment, Perusia 40 In the Res Gestae (34.1) Augustus claims that his position prior to the settlement of 28–27 was based on universal consent.10 This somewhat confuses the continuity from the triumvirate to the settlement of 28–27. I recently considered the importance of this continuity in terms of what I coined the ‘triumviral assignment’.11 The triumvirate was justified as an arrangement for a limited term – five years, later extended for another five years – with the task of setting the state to rights (triumviri rei publicae constituendae): ending the civil war and restoring order. This was accomplished at Philippi (App., B Civ. 4.138) and thus further justification was defined in the pact of Brundisium in 40: to deal with Sextus Pompeius and act against Parthia. Octavian completed his task in 36, but Antonius failed in his Parthian campaign. Both men now promised to relinquish their triumviral powers, which finally occurred after the battle of Actium with the settlement of 28–27.12 Having ended the civil strife at Philippi, the triumvirs redistributed their triumviral duties between them. Octavian had to settle the veterans and deal with the renewed civil war. Antonius’ brother Lucius, consul in 41, assisted by Antonius’ wife Fulvia, challenged Octavian’s actions, possibly seeking to overthrow the triumvirate. This led to war, culminating with the siege and fall of Perusia in early 40.13 We do not know all the imperatorial acclamations of Octavian: the first salutation came on the 16 April 43 after the battle of Forum Gallorum, at Mutina.

Triumphal Topography

157

This was an exclusively civil war: Octavian did not receive a triumph, and declined an ovation.14 The sixth was Actium (Oros. 6.19.14). It is reasonable to conclude that Octavian’s second imperatorial acclamation was Perusia. Curiously, the acclamation came from the defeated army of Lucius Antonius and Octavian subsequently assumed laurels (App., B Civ. 5.46). As after Philippi, Octavian did not celebrate a triumph after Perusia, as they were openly recognized as civil wars.15 However, according to Dio Cassius, Octavian staged a triumph-­like return, even wearing triumphal dress and a laurel crown (48.16.1). Octavian’s return as in triumph shows his willingness to take traditions to their limits and beyond. Beard is right in suggesting that the language of triumph also provided a suitable way of representing the imperial adventus.16 But in the Late Republic, as well as during imperial times, the evidence suggests that the Romans knew full well the difference between triumphs and triumph-­like ceremonies.

A peaceful ceremonial entry, Brundisium 40 Antonius had not supported his brother, but when he arrived at Brundisium during the summer of 40, tensions between him and Octavian grew and for a time it seemed that further civil war might ensue. However, the soldiers were reluctant to fight one other, leading to the treaty of Brundisium.17 The soldiers will have acclaimed the peace-­making generals, and this will have been followed by their joint ovation as a symbol of reconciliation. This probably represents Octavian’s third imperatorial acclamation. The Fasti Triumphales entry is at first surprising, as it does not mention a foreign foe, or indeed any foe (see also Chapters 4 and 5).18 An ovation was granted because Octavian made peace with Antonius. In fact this was nothing new, as there was neither victory nor enemy in Caesar’s 44 ovans ex monte Albano.19 The triumvirs were awarded an ovation for avoiding civil war: triumviri rei publicae constituendae – ending the civil war and restoring order.20 They crossed the pomerium in triumphal dress and on horseback (Dio Cass. 48.31.3). Here we have a quite different and novel form of ovation that began with Caesar: the ovation simply as a ceremonial entry into Rome without a proceeding war, although the avoidance of civil war is connected to warfare. According to the ancient evidence the ovation concluded, as did the triumph, on the Capitoline.21 Antonius and Octavian may have entered through the Porta Triumphalis on the Campus Martius, or alternatively, through the Porta Capena, as they approached the city from the south.

158

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Entering on horseback, Mylae/Naulochus 36 Even though Octavian’s new assignment after the pact of Brundisium 40 BCE was to deal with Sextus Pompeius and thus to end the civil war, the Sicilian war was represented as a slave and pirate war (RG 25.1; the Fasti Triumphales is vague on the matter, however; see also Chapter  5), and accordingly it was celebrated with an ovation, as were the slave wars of 132, 99 and 71.22 Having decisively defeated Sextus Pompeius on the 3 September 36 BCE at Naulochus,23 Octavian entered Rome on the 13 November.24 According to Appian the Senate voted him many honours before he returned and gave him the choice to accept or decline them. He accepted that the Senate and the Roman people would meet him some distance from Rome and then escort him back to the city (App., B Civ. 5.130). Dio Cassius adds that he was given the ovation before his return to Rome, on learning of his success (49.15.1), similar to the joint ovation with Antonius in 40. Octavian entered the city on horseback,25 not on foot, the supposedly traditional manner.26 We have little detail on the ritual of the ovation.27 Aulus Gellius (5.6.27) suggests disagreement on the procedure in antiquity, while Plutarch makes no mention of entry on horseback. Horses are specifically mentioned only in the cases of Caesar (Dio Cass. 44.4.3) and Octavian, and we have to reckon with the possibility that Caesar was innovating.28 Plutarch’s description of the ovation of Claudius Marcellus explicitly mentions that Marcellus entered on foot in 211,29 although he may not have known what occurred in specific cases – Marcellus of course will not have walked all the way from the Alban Mount. Moreover, entering on foot, even as a display of modesty, would have been a rather poor and unspectacular show.30 After crossing the pomerium, Octavian was escorted to the Capitoline and then to his house. On the following day he addressed the Senate and the people, detailing his achievements. This usually took place at the Temple of Bellona, outside the pomerium; but since the ovation was awarded in absence, the triumphal ritual had changed. Appian (B Civ. 5.130) even seems to suggest that Octavian accepted the ovation after detailing his achievements. It does however seem more likely that he entered the city in ovation and then on the following day gave his address. According to Dio Cassius (49.15.3), this did indeed happen before he crossed the pomerium in the traditional manner. It thus appears that Appian and Dio Cassius are in contradiction. The only way to harmonize their accounts would be to suppose that the house, to which they accompanied Octavian on the day before his speeches, was not the Palatine

Triumphal Topography

159

house, but another, suburban house outside the pomerium. Alternatively, Dio Cassius is right that the speeches were delivered outside the pomerium, and so (by implication) he crossed the pomerium for the first time in ovation; Appian’s version may thus just be confused. Of course, as triumvir, Octavian could have crossed the pomerium without losing his imperium, but there seems no reason why he should have made the speech at a later point rather than making it his first entrance. If the speeches were given outside the pomerium, this probably would have been in the Campus Martius/Circus Flaminius area, with the ovation leading through the Porta Triumphalis. Octavian would have sought to make the ceremony appear as triumphal as possible – hence entering on horseback rather than on foot. This does not preclude some other ovations moving through southern gates, particularly the two linked with the Alban Mount (see below).31

The triple triumph of 29 After Octavian’s victories at Actium and Alexandria, while waiting for his return, the Senate passed a number of resolutions in honour of these victories.32 As mentioned, all of Octavian’s triumphs and ovations were voted to him by the Senate before he returned, on learning of his successes – thus without the indignity of his having to request them in person. This was clearly the case for his two main triumphs of Actium and Alexandria (Dio Cass. 51.19.1, 19.5). There were two triumphs in a single war, both fought with the same purpose and against the same enemy. However, it is hardly surprising that the battle of Actium was thought to be sufficiently foreign to qualify for a triumph, as it was the crucial victory in the war (ended at Alexandria).33 Octavian returned to Rome and celebrated a triple triumph over three consecutive days (13–15 August) – over the Dalmatians, for Actium and over Egypt.34 This return was probably the greatest of all his receptions. Velleius (2.89.1; contra Dio Cass. 51.20.4) suggests that Octavian was received enthusiastically on his return to Italy and Rome. Indeed, Augustus declined all future triumphs thereafter in order to preserve its uniqueness (RG 4.1).35 According to Dio Cassius, Octavian only entered on the final day, but he chose to make three triumphs appear as one as a matter of convenience. In the list of honours mentioned by Dio Cassius the three triumphs are very distinct. In the Res Gestae (4.1; cf. Fasti Barberiniani) he also distinctly mentions three separate triumphs, and not a single multi-­day triumph, as had been celebrated by previous generals:36

160

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

[bis] ovans triumphavi et tri[s egi] curulis triumphos et appella[tus sum v]iciens et semel imperator, [decernente pl]uris triumphos mihi sena[t]u, qu[ibus omnibus su]persedi. (‘I celebrated two triumphal ovations and three curule triumphs and I have been hailed twenty-­one times as victorious general, although the Senate voted me more triumphs, from all of which I abstained’) [trans. Cooley 2009, adapted].

It is probable that Octavian, somewhat curiously, processed through the city on each day. He would have been followed by different groups of senators, 700 in all (RG 25.3), including the current magistrates, according to who had served on the respective campaigns. Some senators may even have entered twice. Dio Cassius (51.21.9) mentions that the procession on the last day was unusual because the magistrates did not take the traditional position at the front. This has often been taken to suggest the monarchical status of Octavian, but it seems more reasonable to presume that the senators and magistrates had been soldiers in the army of Octavian and were thus moved.37 Dio Cassius mentions that Pompeius had earlier departed from precedent, according to which the procession should have included those who had played a role in the victory (37.21.1). The year 29 also saw the first closing of the Temple of Janus under Octavian, as an indicator of war and peace.38 This closing surprisingly took place on the 11 January 29, before Octavian returned to Rome. On the basis of the clear implication in Dio Cassius’ narrative that the closing took place before Octavian’s return, the year is assumed to be 29 (Dio Cass. 51.20.4-5), while the Fasti Praenestini record the 11 January (the right side of the stone, indicating the year, is lost however).39 According to Dio Cassius the temple was reopened again in 27, when Augustus set out for Spain (53.26.5; Oros. 6.21.1). The closing is best seen in connection with Octavian’s victories and triumphs: there could be no triumph without pacification and the closing of the Temple of Janus is thus part of the justification for triumph. RG 13 explains: [Ianum] Quirin[um, quem cl]aussum ess[e maiores nostri voluer]unt, cum [p]er totum i[mperium po]puli Roma[ni terra marique es]set parta victoriis pax. (‘Our ancestors wanted Janus Quirinus to be closed when peace had been achieved by victories on land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people’).

This was the triumph – or alternatively triumphs, if Alexandria is included – that ended war, both civil and foreign, and brought peace to Rome (RG 3.1, 4.1, 34.1);

Triumphal Topography

161

the ultimate triumph no less, which fits the title ‘conqueror of the known world’ (RG, heading). If victory meant peace, effectively ending the war, the victorious general might be granted a triumph – this was the normal procedure.40 It seems thus very likely that the temple was closed before Octavian entered Rome in triumph. The closing of the temple might not have been part of Octavian’s return, but there are still ideological implications: Res Gestae 13 makes it clear that the closings reflect peace as the result of victory; this was symbolically connected to the return of Octavian. There is one key aspect of the triple triumph of 29 that has never been answered, even though it has wider implications. As a victorious general Octavian would have approached the city of Rome from the east, but it is unclear how he and his men arrived at the Campus Martius. Beforehand, however, more must be said about triumphal arches.

Nachtrag, triumphal topography and Actium Firstly, arches function as triumphal markers (see also Appendix). The Arch of Actium, situated in the Forum Romanum, is one such marker, and according to Dio Cassius (51.19.1) another stood at Brundisium, where Octavian arrived back in Italy in 29.41 Both arches, adorned with trophies,42 are mentioned together as part of honours given to Octavian after the battle of Actium in 31.43 The implications are fascinating: the arch at Brundisium seems to be a triumphal arch, connected to the victory and subsequent triumph of Actium. This way Octavian marked out his arrival and route through Italy, as he did on the Forum Romanum. Secondly, in 27 an arch was erected on the Milvian Bridge and another in Ariminum (Rimini).44 The inscription of the Milvian Arch commemorates ‘the Via Flaminia and the other most frequented roads in Italy at his prompting and expense’ (EJ 286 = ILS 84; Rich 1990: 156). The arches were erected by the Senate (SPQR) in commemoration of Augustus’ road-building programme. Senators who had recently triumphed were asked to use part of the booty for road repairs.45 The Via Flaminia to Ariminum was repaired by Augustus. Spanish coin issues show the Arch(es) of Augustus, built with the booty from his triple triumph: they show an arch on a bridge, Victoria standing behind Augustus, holding a crown over his head, chariots,46 one pulled by elephants and one by four horses, as well as rams on the side of one arch (implying Actium).47 They are ‘triumphal arches’ in as much as they are connected to triumphs, even if the purpose was to honour Augustus for road building.48 They were not on the route of the returning commander from Actium, but operate as triumphal markers in

162

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Rome and Italy, glorifying the victory of Actium. The notion of victory would become an essential aspect of the legitimization of emperors.49

A practical problem: victorious generals returning from the East Once drawn up, the triumphal procession advanced from the Circus Flaminius and crossed the pomerium at the Triumphal Gate. The gate’s location is uncertain. Coarelli has argued that it formed part of the Porta Carmentalis.50 Cicero’s comments on L. Piso’s return to Rome in 55 (Pis. 55) seem to suggest that that it was an actual gate. The fact that Augustus’ funeral left the city by the Porta Triumphalis also suggests that it was an actual gate, not a shifting location as suggested by Wiseman.51 The question of the triumphal route of commanders approaching by the Via Appia/Latina, which must include all those fighting wars in the East, has to my knowledge not been raised in all the vast bibliography on the route. They may have travelled along the eastern side of the city, outside the walls, but there are no roads and this will have upset many farmers.52 Alternatively, they could have moved west, between the Aventine and the Tiber and then on from the Forum Boarium to the Bellona temple on the Campus Martius. A third possibility was to go through the Porta Capena and then along the left side of the Circus Maximus to the Forum Boarium. The path of the city walls between the Capitoline and the Aventine remains a disputed question, and it is possible that the circuit never protected the area of the Forum Boarium and the Tiber port.53 Indeed, if the Forum Boarium was ever enclosed, the fortification appears to have been redundant by the third century.54 One problem is that we do not know where exactly the pomerium ran in the valley between the Aventine and the Palatine. The only evidence is Tacitus: of the various places he mentions, the location of the Altar of Hercules is only approximately known and those of the other places not at all. We are left with his statement that it ran ‘along the base of the Palatine Hill’ (Ann. 12.24: per ima montis Palatini), which, if taken literally, might imply that the Circus Maximus itself was outside the pomerium. Senate meetings at the temples of Apollo/Bellona are attested by Livy for, among others, Marcellus on return from Sicily, and Flamininus, Manlius Vulso and Fulvius Nobilior after their campaigns in the Greek East.55 It seems unlikely that the Senate would have expected such commanders to make their way

Triumphal Topography

163

round the city to these temples in the Circus Flaminius if their armies remained to the south of Rome. It thus seems reasonable to accept that commanders and their armies did make their way to the Campus Martius before the Senate hearing and the subsequent triumph. However, it is hard to imagine the victorious general lurking around the city or going through the city. And if this were the case, it would surely have formed part of the spectacle. For whatever reason it is unmentioned in the ancient evidence, as the sources concentrated on the triumph proper and the travelling in triumph-­like procession through Italy. Marcellus only received an ovation, but celebrated an Alban Mount triumph, and probably made his spectacular entry into Rome at the Porta Capena (see below).56 T. Quinctius Flamininus came across to Brundisium and then proceeded to Rome in virtual triumph (Livy 34.52.2): inde per totam Italiam ad urbem prope triumphantes non minore agmine rerum captarum quam suo prae se acto venerunt. (‘Thence they proceeded all the way through Italy to Rome in a virtual triumph, the captured articles forming as long a column as the troops which marched ahead of him’).57

He was then granted an audience with the Senate and triumphed for three days. Livy does not tell what happened in Rome, but surely in appearance the spectacle begun at Brundisium would not have stopped, paused, and then restarted later on the Campus Martius. Rather, this should be considered a continuous spectacle.58 Whenever and wherever the spectacle began, a consequence of these movements in and around Rome was clearly that great importance was attached to passing through the Porta Triumphalis, it being felt that, at least for curule triumphs, the crossing of the pomerium had to be at this point. It should be added that Aemilius Paullus in 167 apparently solved the problem by sailing up the Tiber on Perseus’ flagship, as attested by both Livy and Plutarch.59 According to Livy, spectators had gathered along the route to witness the spectacle – thus his arrival by ship was as in triumph. Cato’s arrival in Rome in 56 is similarly described by Plutarch as a show of splendour similar to that of a triumph (Cato Min. 39). In 167 Anicius Gallus and Cn. Octavius arrived with their fleet (Livy 45.35.3-4), thus perhaps suggesting that the Navalia functioned as the maritime approach of the triumphant commander.60 During the Middle and Late Republic seagoing vessels appear to have sailed up the Tiber to Rome without stopping at Ostia.61 It must be assumed that Aemilius Paullus’ army disembarked at Brundisium.62

164

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

There is no doubt of the existence of a navalia on the Campus Martius,63 opposite the Prata Quinctia.64 A possible reading of a disputed fragment of the Severan marble plan, the Forma Urbis (fragment 23, 24a-­d), may also show a [NAVA]LIA in the area below the Aventine on the left Tiber bank (constructed in opus incertum in the early second century).65 It may thus be impossible to know with certainty where naval victors arrived, as there may have been more than one military harbour in Rome.

The Augustan programme of pacification and the princeps’ return On the 13 January 27 Augustus returned the provinces and the armies to the SPQR (RG 34.1), thus completing the transfer of the res publica begun in 28. After protests from the senators, Augustus retained Egypt, Gaul, Spain and Syria for ten years, allegedly either because they had enemies on their borders or for fear of rebellion (Dio Cass. 53.12.1-2). The promise of securing the provinces from internal as well as external enemies justified the division of the provinces and enabled Augustus to retain most of the legions under his command. After the settlement Augustus spent much of the next twenty years away from Rome, in part to justify his new provincial command: in 27 he travelled to Gaul and then in 26 to Spain for the Cantabrian War.66 The triumviral assignment thus became the model for Augustus’ retaining of the powers required to carry out the tasks and assignments presented to him by the Senate and the people. Fixed-­term tasks became the standard way for Augustus to justify monarchy.67 The war against the Cantabri was ended by Agrippa in 19, but in Rome in 25 it was accepted that Augustus had been victorious against the Cantabri and the Astures.68 Although Dio Cassius is sceptical, this victory played a vital role, even if uprisings did not cease at that time.69 Even if we know very little about Augustus’ actual return on the 13 June of 24, it can be safely reconstructed as follows: he will have left as holder of imperium and taken auspices at the Capitoline and there proclaimed a vow for his command and the public welfare (Cic., Verr. 2.5.34). He would then put on the paludamentum, the purple military cloak, and cross the pomerium accompanied by friends and well-­wishers. The passing from the civil sphere (domi) to the military (militiae) would then be reversed on his return.70 In the cases in which Augustus was hailed imperator, he will have made sacrifices on his crossing of the pomerium.71 This is evident in Res Gestae 4.1: l[aurum de

Triumphal Topography

165

f]asc[i]bus deposui in Capi[tolio, votis quae] quoque bello nuncupaveram [sol]utis (‘I deposited the laurel from my fasces in the Capitoline temple, in fulfilment of the vows which I had taken in each war’).72 Augustus clearly took vows for each of his post-27 departures. At the same time the new provincial arrangements of 27 had put an end to the departure ritual for proconsuls and perhaps thenceforth the emperor alone wore the paludamentum.73 Augustus would have been welcomed back as a commander and, as had Republican generals, he would have redeemed the undertaking in accordance with his vow and dedicated his laurels on the Capitoline, votis solutis.74 Dio Cassius is extremely brief on the actual return of Augustus, but does mention that he was given honours (53.28.3), presented because of his recovery from illness (53.28.1). Furthermore, Dio Cassius mentions that Augustus promised to give the people 400 sesterces each (53.28.1) – this sum equals the sum paid out to the people after his triple triumph of 29 (RG 15.1). Although he declined to triumph in 25 after his Cantabrian success, he apparently felt that the people should not suffer for his modesty.75 He did however accept the right to wear the crown and triumphal dress on the first day of every year and the Temple of Janus was to be closed in 25.76 Again, this probably occurred while Augustus was away from Rome, as a symbol of the accomplishment of the first phase of pacification of the provinces. Augustus’ return in 24 was part of a process, in which non-­triumphal returns included triumphal features. On this occasion there might have been quite a spectacle with large crowds greeting him (Cic., Mur. 68–69). Horace certainly anticipates a conventional reception (Odes 3.14).

The Porta Capena: returning from the East in 19 In 22 Augustus had travelled to the East and in 20 was voted an ovation for the Parthian Settlement (Dio Cass. 54.8.3), which he declined. In 19, he returned to Rome, where he entered the city by night.77 After 29, or certainly after 24 BCE, Augustus did not allow his returns to Rome to become the great demonstrations of popular welcome which characterized the adventus of later emperors. Suetonius writes (Aug. 53.2; cf. Dio Cass. 54.25.3-4 – on 13 BCE): non temere urbe oppidove ullo egressus aut quoquam ingressus est nisi vespera aut noctu, ne quem officii causa inquietaret. (‘He did not if he could help it leave or enter any city or town except in the evening or at night, to avoid disturbing anyone by the obligations of ceremony’).

166

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

As this was only a diplomatic success he would have avoided a triumphal or triumph-­like return. According to Dio Cassius (54.8.3) Augustus entered the city on horseback, that is to say in ovation, but this cannot be, as the two ovations of Octavian (40 and 36 BCE) are well known (mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales) and because Dio Cassius himself states that Augustus entered the city by night (54.10.4).78 Nevertheless, it still stands in sharp contrast to the comments of Cicero, on Piso’s nocturnal return (Pis. 53) – the ritual of moving across the pomerium had clearly changed dramatically.79 Augustus did however accept the Ara Fortunae Reducis and that the day be remembered as feriae and called Augustalia.80 The success of Augustus might in Republican times have been firmly placed in the public consciousness with the erection of a monument at his own expense, not as an honour voted to him. According to Dio Cassius (54.10.3) he did not accept other honours on this occasion. He was however met by a delegation in Campania, an unprecedented honour (RG 12.2),81 and he did accept an annual sacrifice on the 12 October (feriae), the day he entered the city, to be conducted by priests and even the Vestal Virgins (RG 11). These were all honours voted in Augustus’ absence. The altar of Fortuna Redux was placed in front of the Temple of Honour and Virtue just outside the Capena Gate (RG 11: Aram [Fortunae] Red[ucis a]nte aedes Honoris et Virtutis ad portam Cap[enam]). This gives us a very precise description of the altar and its context. The temple was dedicated in 205 by the son of the victor M. Claudius Marcellus.82 M. Claudius Marcellus celebrated an Alban Mount triumph, but this was accompanied by a celebration in Rome, as a combination of an Alban Mount triumph and an ovation.83 He may have entered the city through the Porta Capena in his ovation rather than first carrying on to the Campus Martius.84 One reason why Marcellus may have entered at the Porta Capena is the Temple of Honos et Virtus. After the ovatio the temple was the location of the artworks from his manubiae.85 This he no doubt wanted to show to the people and what better occasion than a procession from the Alban Mount to the city, entering in ovation. As I described in Chapter 2, he accepted the ovation as a compromise. But again, many Senators opposed him and in fact they even censured his exhibition of artworks. This may have fuelled his desire to protest. The Senate then also refused him the Temple of Honos et Virtus, the perfect location of his booty, no doubt leaving him most frustrated.86 Caesar may also have entered through the Porta Capena for his ovation in 44.87 In this case, if proceeding directly from the Alban Mount it is hard to conceive of an alternative, and certainly the Fasti Triumphales mentions this as

Triumphal Topography

167

a combined manifestation: ovans ex monte Albano (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567). It does not belong there if no celebration took place at Albano, and it may clarify that Caesar returned, in ovation, from the Alban Mount, and thus went through the Porta Capena, not the Porta Triumphalis. Keeping this in mind, it seems probable that Antonius and Octavian entered Rome through the same gate in 40. As for Marcellus, people in Rome knew what was coming – the Senate meeting had already happened and the spectacle was well under way when Marcellus reached Rome. Perhaps this was also the reason why Cicero, when returning from exile, and who certainly came in by this route, described his reception in quasi-­triumphal terms (Att. 4.1.5; Pis. 51–55). Antonius and Octavian in 40, arriving from the East, would also have chosen to enter at the Porta Capena. The Porta Capena certainly had triumphal connotations and in the case of Augustus, it allowed a modest mode of return that also ensured lasting commemorations.

Peace is named after Augustus: returning to Rome in 13 In 16 Augustus travelled to Gaul and the Temple of Janus was opened.88 The last decreed closing apparently never occurred.89 Rich plausibly argues, as already mentioned in Chapter  3, that there may not be a third closing, and that it remained open until the reign of Nero (Rich 2003: 356). Dio Cassius (54.36.2) states that it was decreed closed in 11, but this never happened due to hostilities on the Balkans. Suetonius (Aug. 22) mentions that it was closed three times, but RG 13 only says decreed three times.90 Orosius (6.22.1) has the shrine closed in 2 (the nativity of Christ), but this is surely a Christian fiction.91 As he preserved the uniqueness of the triple triumph by declining further triumphs, Augustus may have declined the last closing of the Temple of Janus as he no longer campaigned in person.92 Augustus returned on the 4 July 13 (Dio Cass. 54.25). As in 19 he entered Rome by night.93 The next day he deposited the laurels from his fasces on the Capitoline (RG 4.1). Surprisingly, Dio Cassius (54.25.3) tells us that he declined an altar to the Augustan Peace, but this is easily dismissed by other ancient evidence.94 Dio Cassius (54.19.7) also mentions games to Jupiter for Augustus’ safe return, vowed on his departure from Rome in 16 and held in 13 on his return.95 While the altar of Fortune the Home-Bringer was obviously connected to the return of Augustus, the Ara Pacis was connected to his assignment, that is to say,

168

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

the pacification of the Empire, and also his actual return to Rome after having fulfilled the assignment. As in 19, the Ara Pacis was located on Augustus’ return route – in 13 he will have approached the city on the Flaminia.96 Significantly, this pacification process was only possible due to Augustus and thus given his name – Ara Pacis Augustae – and consecrated on the field of Mars.97 The closing of the Temple of Janus was connected to his person (RG 13) and served as an alternative to the triumph. This way pax and Augustus became closely tied together and he now claimed to have fulfilled his assignment – the Empire was pacified.98 The difference between the geographical markers springs to mind: RG 11 on Fortune the Home-Bringer is very precise, whereas RG 12 is less so. However, the Campus Martius became central to Augustus early on; as befitting the context of 32, Augustus’ Mausoleum formed a counterpoint to the decidedly un-Roman wishes of Antonius, whose will stated his wish to be buried in Alexandria next to Cleopatra. The Mausoleum in Rome is the ideal counterpart to Alexandria.99 The final alteration to the building programme on the Campus Martius was the Res Gestae, put up ante Mausoleum after his death (Suet., Aug. 101.4). The field of Mars became the field of peace, a symbol of peace after Augustus’ victories.100 The entrances of both the Mausoleum and the Augustan Peace Altar point inwards to the northern part of the Campus Martius, not outwards to the via Flaminia or the Tiber.101 In fact the most recent research on the Pantheon suggests that it also faced north and thus inwards to the northern part of the Campus Martius.102 This way the Mausoleum and the Pantheon, along with the surrounding buildings of Agrippa, including the Aqua Virgo, act as geographical markers, creating an Augustan space on the northern parts of the field of Mars.

Advances into central Europe 12–8 Augustus launched an advance into central Europe in 12 and was stationed in Northern Italy and Gaul until 8 BCE.103 It seems that Augustus did not return to Rome after the campaigns of 11.104 In 12 Augustus took his eleventh salutation, and dedicated laurels on his return for the Alpine victory won by Drusus and Tiberius, fighting under his auspices – as was the case for the rest of the salutations. In 9 he received his thirteenth.105 At the end of 10 he returned to Rome (Dio Cass. 54.36.4). New salutations could not be taken until he had returned and deposited the laurels. In 12–11 Tiberius and Drusus acted as Augustus’ legati and thus were not allowed salutations or triumphs. They did

Triumphal Topography

169

however receive the ornamenta triumphalia, conferred to Tiberius in 12 and Drusus in 11.106 This entitled them to triumphal dress, similar to triumphators, which mainly involved wearing the laurel crown at games. The ornamenta triumphalia constitutes another change in triumphal history.107 However, in 7 Tiberius was granted and celebrated a triumph.108 After the death of Drusus in 9, Augustus declined to enter the city, probably as an act of mourning (Dio Cass. 55.5.1-2). Augustus even chose to deliver a laudatio in Drusus’ honour in the Circus Flaminius, outside the pomerium.109 Eventually he did enter the city in 8 (Dio Cass. 55.4.4–5.2; ILS 8894), where he delivered the laurel wreath to the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius – not as was customary in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline (cf. Dio Cass. 54.25.4) – as Drusus had been hailed imperator.110 Augustus had restored the temple at the suggestion of Atticus, probably around 31.111 Drusus’ final entry into Rome resembled a triumph.112 Amongst the posthumous honours presented to Drusus was an arch, here a triumphal honour, close to the Temple of Mars at the start of the Appian Way.113 It would have been more in keeping with tradition to build the arch to the north of the city, as this is the road upon which Drusus returned. The arch was built at the entrance road to Rome and loaded with spoils.114 Wiseman in a recent review article about the Palatine (Wiseman 2013: 249–50) suggests that the Temple of Victoria on the Palatine was given the epithet Germaniciana under Augustus (mentioned in the Constantinian Regionary catalogues, see 249 for the text): Drusus had of course fought in Germany.115 And we know that Augustus rebuilt the Temple of Victoria (CIL 6.31060). The arch may not have been part of the via triumphalis, but it was part of the approach to Rome, as were the altars of Augustus. The arch was associated with military victory, adorned with trophies, together with the surname Germanicus in honour of these victories. Even if this is not a triumphal arch, it is an arch connected to victory and similar to a triumphal arch: a triumph-­like arch.116 This was a substitute for the triumph Drusus never celebrated, and the same can be said for his triumphal funeral.117

The last departure: the triumphal funeral of 14 CE Even when Augustus’ returns were characterized by absence or refusal to triumph after 29, triumphal themes were a central part of the ideology of the regime. Augustus’ funeral was no exception. The procession left the city by the Porta Triumphalis and ended near or at the Mausoleum.118 We know that Augustus

170

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

had left a document with instructions for his funeral; nothing was left to chance.119 The funeral procession also included a wax image of Augustus in triumphal garb, a triumphal chariot carrying his image, and images of the nations he had conquered.120 It reversed the triumphal route. Augustus’ funeral in many ways sums up the compromise between tradition and innovation so typical for his reign.

Conclusions Refusal to triumph after 29 had implications for the returns of Augustus, but this of course needed to take place without relinquishing a ceremonial entry. If any form of entry was declined, such as in the returns by night, then the princeps used geographical markers, in monumental form, at the main entrances of the city, north and south. Augustus thus marked the area around the gates as he used them – as markers at the end of his successful journeys. Res Gestae 9 mentions a festival and vows to the health of Augustus, while chapter 10 records the hymn of the Salii. This may originally have been sung to ensure the safety of Rome at war,121 but the safety of Rome was now inextricably associated with the safety of Augustus. Chapters 11–12 are about the safe return of the princeps and altars as monumental manifestations of these returns.122 The returns of Augustus are thus connected to the fulfilment of his assignments: without Augustus there would have been no victory and no peace (RG 13). The chronology of the RG is relative; the closing of Janus comes first in chronological terms but last in the RG, after the two altars (RG 11, 12). There is thus a distinct movement from war to peace within these chapters.123 The altars are substitutes for the traditional return ritual of the Roman magistrate, including the triumph, and associated with the crossing of the pomerium, the crossing from militiae to domi, from war to peace. They are the result of Augustus’ refusal to triumph, but at the same time the altars, as well as the Temple of Janus, became symbols of the new assignment of the princeps: pacification. He may have declined triumphs after 29, but his refusals themselves became public acts. Augustus had defined anew the traditional war ritual – the triumph – and at the same time he had initiated the process of defining the adventus of the princeps.124

Epilogue: Civil War and Triumph. The Casa di Pilatos Relief

Fig. E1  The Casa di Pilatos Relief, Actium battle scene.

In 1570 parts of a large historical relief (Reliefzyklus) depicting the life and deeds of Augustus were taken to Casa di Pilatos in Sevilla from Napoli by Per Afán de Ribera, the first Duque de Alcalá, Viceroy of Napoli.1 Unfortunately, little is known concerning the provenance of most pieces in his collection.2 He did however purchase art in Campania and Lazio and additionally, received artworks from Pope Pius V. Today two slabs remain in Seville and more are presently in Cordoba in the Duchess of Cardona collection. Three further slabs, depicting Apollo, part of a procession (fragmented, with a flute player) and a processional

172

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

carriage,3 are now in Budapest. The entire surviving relief was on display in Rome (2013–14) at the exhibition commemorating the bimillennium of Augustus’ death on the 19 August 2014. Significantly, the relief has now been published in entirety for the first time.4 In this epilogue I wish to consider this relief in the specific context of the subject of this book: triumph and civil war. The slabs are from left to right (the order of slabs in the Rome exhibition, a reconstruction as proposed by Thomas Schäfer, which is very conclusive; see Schäfer 2013: 321–3):5 Apollo (1, fragmented) overlooking the battle of Actium (1–4), the Actium triumph (5), trumpeters, flutist, lictores etc. (6, fragmented, and 7),6 Victoria (8), Mars and Roma (9), a naval commander (10) and the processional wagon (tensa, carrying a god’s exuvia) of the Deified Augustus (11).7 The symmetry indicates that some slabs are missing. Furthermore, the slab with the triumphal chariot and that with the processional wagon followed by two togati appear to be incomplete. The first seven slabs are orientated from left to right, the last four from right to left, suggesting at least fourteen panels. The first and last of the slabs are wider than the rest, but the breaking up of the slabs appears to have mostly occurred post-­antiquity. As will become obvious below, the disagreement on the matter of the relief is profound, in part, I would suggest, because prior to the Rome exhibition not all slabs were taken into account, as they were not thought to belong to the same monument. The suggested dating of the piece is assumed to be either Augustan (unconvincing due to style as well as context) or Claudian. Furthermore, there is the question as to how we should identify the scenes on the panels. The last scene with the processional wagon is particularly disputed. Even so, most agree that the relief depicts the battle of Actium and a triumphal scene.8 A survey of the relief in its entirety may provide insight into the ways in which the battle of Actium was perceived, either in post-Augustan times, or alternatively, albeit much less likely, the immediate aftermath of the battle itself. An Augustan dating would indeed create new problems, as the panel with the processional wagon logically must be later, probably post-Augustan, after the official deification of Augustus. Identifying the processional wagon as that of the Deified Caesar seems rather unlikely and even far-­fetched.9 How should we explain the presence of the Deified Caesar on the slab? Szidat proposes an Augustan date and emphasizes the battle of Naulochus (and sees a tensa).10 However, the battle of Naulochos is entirely unconvincing, mainly due to the Apollo panel, which she did not know belonged to the relief. Trunk suggests (Trunk 2010: 34) that the triumphal chariot excludes an ovation, as was in fact granted after the 36 victory. This is a rather rigid interpretation albeit correct in principle. In contrast Szidat accepts

Epilogue

173

that Octavian was granted an ovation in 36, but since nobody would understand the imagery of the ovation, strictly triumphal iconography was used (Szidat 1997: 20, 87–8, cf. 90). Apollo is conclusive in as much as the god is associated with the battle of Actium. Szidat does not, however, explain how the processional wagon fits her date and why it was important enough to be shown on the relief. A post-Augustan date is thus, as I hope to show, the most feasible.11 The question is further complicated by the uncertainty as to what public building or monument the relief adorned. Schäfer and Murray both suggest that it is from a centre of imperial cult,12 while Trunk (2010: 36) suggests a public monument, perhaps a triumphal arch, or something similar to the Victory Monument at Actium or the Ara Pacis (42), but this is conjectural: Augustus was deified after his death, and it is probably his funeral or processional wagon shown on the relief.13 Szidat (1997: 8, 89–90) suggests that the panels came from Rome (due to the overall quality of the relief), but this is uncertain.14 The left to right and right to left orientation of the relief may suggest that they originally belonged to a temple or some kind of square or rectangular monument: (1) the Apollo and naval battle panels, (2) the panels showing the triumphal and processional wagon panels show movement, one from left to right and one from right to left. This is very similar to the movement on the Ara Pacis:15 the two processions move in opposite directions (they are probably not the same procession, contrary to the Ara Pacis). They then meet in the middle, where there may have been another panel. A possible reconstruction: the battle of Actium may have been at the front of the building/monument, followed by two processions on the side walls and a further end slab opposite the Actium panels (this changes if they are placed on the inner walls, as the Res Gestae in the Ankara temple). This suggests a movement from Actium, through triumph and deification to an end point, perhaps an image of the Deified Augustus. This would be fitting for a building connected to the imperial cult. It was undoubtedly a major monument, probably in honour of the Divine Augustus, and in importance may even be comparable to the Victory Monument at Actium/ Nicopolis. In essence we have a new ‘Augustan monument’, as in a monument about Augustus:16 a temple to Divus Augustus. One possible location might even be the naval base at Misenum. The relief appears to show Actium as the turning point for Augustus, that is to say the beginning of his reign. It appears to be a retrospective judgement of Claudian times, clearly referring to Augustan ideology, which also presented Actium as the turning point of the age.17 The context makes it unlikely that this relief shows anything but the battle of Actium: Apollo is overlooking the battle

174

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

of Actium, with lyre, tripod and a ship clearly visible.18 It is extremely tempting, with Strocka,19 to assume that Apollo is situated on the hill sacred to him (sitting on an actual rock, clearly visible), at Actium.20 After the battle the victorious Octavian is granted and subsequently celebrates a triumph. It is logical therefore that the triumph panel is a depiction of the Actian triumph, similar to the relief from Nicopolis, not the triplex triumphus in more generic terms. On the quadriga a Victoria and a laurel wreath are clearly visible. Interestingly, the quadriga shown on the relief has the triumphator standing alone, contrary to the Nicopolis relief.21 Unfortunately the head of Augustus is restored.22 The triumphator is holding a laurel leaf in his hand. This is repeated by the followers of his processional wagon, on the last slab, as well as Mars on the sacrificial slab. This is comparable to the Boscoreale Cups, with Tiberius holding a similar laurel leaf in a similar fashion. In front of the quadriga of Octavian a female figure is holding the reins of the horses, perhaps Virtus, emphasizing the military ability of the victorious commander.23 The triumphal scene moves from left to right and includes musicians (flute players and trumpeters), and young girls carrying shields. Furthermore, a Roman magistrate/senator can be seen in front of the triumphal chariot, together with a

Fig. E2  The Casa di Pilatos Relief, triumph scene.

Epilogue

175

Fig. E3  Triumphal quadriga, from the monumental altar of the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis.

lictor carrying fasces with an axe, thus signifying a triumph. The sacrificial panel, belonging to the processional wagon scene, moves in the other direction, from right to left. However, Victoria with a huge laurel wreath,24 Mars, Roma25 and bulls (thus an intact, i.e., not castrated, adult animal) all point to a triumph and the culminating sacrifice at the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.26 It should however be remembered that the funeral of Augustus was a reversed ‘triumph’, as a procession and as a ritual.27 Senators/magistrates are also present in this middle slab (with laurel wreaths).28 The ‘final’ part of the relief symbolically shows the Deified Augustus, with a tensa drawn by four horses (Plut., Cor. 25 on the horses). Honos and Virtus (for the second time) are holding the reins of the processional carriage.29 Szidat (1997: 24–83, cf. Guidetti 2009) provides a catalogue of these processional carriages, three of which show no sign of being triumphal chariots (their form and ornaments are non-­triumphal): the one from the relief (Szidat 1997: 31, nr. a), one from the British Museum (Szidat 1997: 31, nr. b, Fig.  11; Guidetti 2009: Fig.  2), and one from the Capitoline Museum (Szidat 1997: 31, nr. c,

176

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Fig. E4  Senatorial followers, from the monumental altar of the Victory Monument at Actium/Nicopolis.

Fig. 12; Guidetti 2009: Fig. 3). Also of interest are a Vatican relief (Szidat 1997: 31, nr. d, Fig. 13), a bronze medallion (Szidat 1997: 32, nr. l, Fig. 19: with lupa and inscribed ROM), and a lamp (Szidat 1997: 33, nr. m, Fig. 20). None of these show any signs of triumphal ornaments. The BM processional wagon does not appear to have a footboard, and neither does the processional wagon on the relief, thus indicating that they were not open wagons. Furthermore, they are altogether extremely similar, thus supporting the idea that the panel wagon is a processional wagon. The story of Aeneas fleeing Troy together with his father and his son Iulus is depicted on the panel carriage, implying the Julian family, as well as the sow which had just given birth to thirty piglets on the site of the future town of Lavinium.30 This resembles the depiction of the arrival of Aeneas in Latium as found on the Ara Pacis.31 On the side towards the viewer Romulus is visible. This allows an alternative interpretation, and it may be another triumphal chariot. The triumphal chariot idea is supported by Strocka (2009), who suggests that the alleged processional wagon is in fact the quadriga known from the Forum Augustum, allegedly surviving today in the Vatican Museum.32 The problem is that, even if Strocka

Epilogue

177

may partly be right that there are difficulties defining the exact form of a processional wagon, he does not engage with the argument and the suggestion that this is the Forum Augustum chariot is unfounded. A few points need to be made: why not make the chariot on the panel similar to the triumphal chariot on the same relief, if they are meant to be similar chariot types? Similarly, it is extremely difficult to see how the Vatican chariot and the ‘tensa’ chariot could be the same type of chariot, also due to the rather different ornaments (flowers). Importantly, in both cases these ornaments are non-­triumphal (I shall return to the question below). To complicate matters, however, the triumphal chariot with Octavian and two children from the Actium Victory Monument does also appear odd, as no triumphal features are visible on the wagon’s ornaments: the chariot is round-­shaped, not rectangular, like the tensa on the Claudian monument. It does however seem to be a ‘slow type’, not a ‘fast’ type, as seen on the Claudian relief and on the Boscoreale Cups (see below). A closer look at coins may help to clarify matters: Augustus’ elephant quadriga (RIC 12 Tiberius 56, 62, 68) is very different from a triumphal chariot in its rectangular form and there are no triumphal ornaments visible on the side. Other Tiberian coins (RIC 12 Tiberius 54, 60, 66) do not show a processional wagon or tensa, but a triumphal chariot without a driver.33 Victoria is clearly visible, suggesting triumph.34 Similarly, Claudius’ elephant quadriga (RIC 12 Nero 6–7) looks like that of Augustus. Again, the form is different than that of a triumphal chariot and there is no footboard. Furthermore, other coins from the reign of Nero (RIC 12 Nero 4–5) do not appear to show a processional wagon, but an empty triumphal chariot similar to the one for Augustus mentioned above. The legend DIVI CLAVD does not change this, as the triumphal chariot was connected to the apotheosis of the emperor and the cult to the living emperor.35 Three denarii of Rubrius Dossenus from 87 (RRC 348/1–3) show a triumphal quadriga.36 The form for the chariots is slightly unconventional, but it appears to be a ‘slow’ type: the chariots are remarkably different; due to the size of the coin and the difficulty of depicting them it must be assumed. Importantly, it has a footboard at the back of the vehicle, in order for a person to step into the open wagon, as seen on the triumphal chariot on the Gemma Augustae, with Tiberius stepping out of the chariot. This vital detail is not found on the processional wagon on the relief, suggesting that it was a closed wagon, not a triumphal chariot. This is remarkable, as the panel is so much larger than coins that including a footboard would have presented no difficulties. However, there is one problem: the distinct tympanon on some of the coins (showing empty chariots) do not fit the regular images of triumphal chariots.37

178

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Szidat (1997: 61) also points to the oddity of having a footboard on a tensa, but since the coin images at the same time show a rectangular shape and distinct tympanon, she convincingly concludes that the chariot on the coins is a hybrid form (esp. 69, 80; cf. Trunk 2010: 39). This would in fact tie in rather well with the deification and the triumphal rule of Augustus.38 The problem again seems to be that some coins do suggest a triumphal chariot, even though a tympanon is visible (Szidat 1997: 63: the Parthian coins, see Rich 1998). Her conclusion that they are easy to tell apart thus seems premature (Szidat 1997: 66). Accepting this hybrid idea, the fronts of the chariots are like those of a processional wagon, the back like that of a triumphal chariot. The connection between triumph/triumphal and deification seems obvious. And if this is accepted, the hybrid form of the wagon on the coins suggests but one thing: a connection between tensa, deification and triumph. Significantly, the more this is emphasized, the more important it becomes that the processional wagon on the relief is not a hybrid, but a tensa, as there is no triumphal iconography, a rectangular form and no footboard. This wagon should thus not be compared to the coins, but only to the few parallel examples of processional wagons (tensae). Interestingly, Suetonius (Claud. 11.2) mentions the processional wagon of Augustus and Livia as currus, often used in connection with the triumphal chariot (see below). The connection between triumph and the reversed triumph at Augustus’ funeral still stands (Suet., Iul. 84.4: the funeral of Caesar similarly contained equipment from his triumphs, although in an altogether more chaotic procession). When Cicero was governor in Cilicia he did not accept statues, shrines or quadrigae in his honour (Att. 5.21.7): nullos honores mihi nisi verborum decerni sino, statuas, fana, tethrippa [τέθριππον] prohibeo.39 This concerned Greek honours, but even so, nothing would have prevented the Senate from voting Hellenistic honours to the victor of Actium had they so wished. The triumphal chariot (or hybrid of a triumphal chariot and a tensa), or so I believe, is shown on post-Augustan coins because of the reversed triumph at the funeral of Augustus. Dio Cass. 56.34.1-4 is the key passage, worth quoting in its entirety: ταῦτα μὲν αἱ ἐντολαὶ εἶχον, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο ἡ ἐκφορὰ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. κλίνη ἦν ἔκ τε ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ πεποιημένη καὶ στρώμασιν ἁλουργοῖς διαχρύσοις κεκοσμημένη: καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ τὸ μὲν σῶμα κάτω που ἐν θήκῃ συνεκέκρυπτο, εἰκὼν δὲ δή τις αὐτοῦ κηρίνη ἐν ἐπινικίῳ στολῇ ἐξεφαίνετο. καὶ αὕτη μὲν ἐκ τοῦ παλατίου πρὸς τῶν ἐς νέωτα ἀρχόντων, ἑτέρα δὲ ἐκ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου χρυσῆ, καὶ ἑτέρα αὖ ἐφ᾽ ἅρματος πομπικοῦ ἤγετο. καὶ μετὰ ταύτας αἵ τε τῶν προπατόρων αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ τῶν ἄλλων συγγενῶν τῶν τεθνηκότων, πλὴν τῆς τοῦ Καίσαρος ὅτι

Epilogue

179

ἐς τοὺς ἥρωας ἐσεγέγραπτο, αἵ τε τῶν ἄλλων Ῥωμαίων τῶν καὶ καθ᾽ ὁτιοῦν πρωτευσάντων, ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ῥωμύλου ἀρξάμεναι, ἐφέροντο. καί τις καὶ τοῦ Πομπηίου τοῦ μεγάλου εἰκὼν ὤφθη, τά τε ἔθνη πάνθ᾽ ὅσα προσεκτήσατο, ἐπιχωρίως σφίσιν ὡς ἕκαστα ἀπῃκασμένα ἐπέμφθη. κἀκ τούτου καὶ τὰ ἄλλα αὐτοῖς, ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ἄνω λόγοις εἴρηται, ἐφέσπετο. προτεθείσης δὲ τῆς κλίνης ἐπὶ τοῦ δημηγορικοῦ βήματος, ἀπὸ μὲν ἐκείνου ὁ Δροῦσός τι ἀνέγνω, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐμβόλων τῶν Ἰουλιείων ὁ Τιβέριος δημόσιον δή τινα κατὰ δόγμα λόγον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τοιόνδε ἐπελέξατο; (‘Then came his [Augustus’] funeral. There was a couch made of ivory and gold adorned with coverings of purple and gold. In it his body was hidden, in a coffin down below; but a wax image of him in triumphal garb was visible. This image was borne from the palace by the officials elected for the following year, and another of gold from the Senate house, and still another upon a triumphal chariot. Behind these came the images of his ancestors and of his deceased relatives (except that of Caesar, because he had been numbered among the divi)40 and those of other Romans who had been prominent in any way, beginning with Romulus himself. An image of Pompeius the Great was also seen, and all the nations he had acquired, each represented by a likeness which bore some local characteristic, appeared in the procession. After these followed all the other objects mentioned above. When the couch had been placed in full view of the Rostra of the orators, Drusus read something from that place; and from the other Rostra, that is the Julian, Tiberius delivered the following public address over the deceased, in pursuance of a decree; . . .’).

ἐκ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου . . . ἐφ᾽ ἅρματος πομπικοῦ (‘a second image, of gold, from the Senate house, and still another on a triumphal chariot’ [trans. Swan 2004]) is fascinating, as it mentions a triumphal chariot used at the funeral (the chariot is not empty, see below). Swan rightly points out that the golden statue would have been manufactured during Augustus’ lifetime (Swan 2004: 321). The procession also included a list of subdued nations (Dio Cass. 56.34.3). Swan suggests that they were subdued by Pompeius (Swan 2004: 323). We may wonder what nations, subdued by Augustus, were present, and crucially, how Actium would have been represented. However, why represent Pompeius Magnus and the fourteen nationes in the pompa funebris? It is more reasonable to conclude that they were the simulacra gentium defeated by Augustus.41 The procession followed the (reversed) triumphal route, through the Porta Triumphalis (Dio Cass. 56.42.1), with the statue of Victoria from the Senate house in front (Suet., Aug. 100.2). Even soldiers participated, as in a triumph.42 This spectacle signified Augustus’ triumphal rulership. Interestingly, this is similar to the Forum of Augustus, where Roman history was divided into two phases, which are compared: before

180

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

and during the reign of Augustus. The same notion appears in RG 13, where Augustus mentions his own birth; Roman history is divided into two parts and Augustus’ birth is the turning point. It is probable that the chariot used in this procession was the very triumphal chariot used by Augustus in 29, and used in later triumphs and triumph-­like celebrations by Tiberius and Nero. Thus the triumphal chariot became a symbol of the deification of Augustus and this is the image shown on coins. Triumphal chariots are consequently visible on the coins (as a hybrid), not processional wagons. The reversed triumph at Augustus’ funeral was orchestrated to show the world, as did his forum, that Augustus’ triumph and triumphal rulership surpassed all others before him in Roman history. Let us for a moment return to the idea that a triumphal chariot is depicted, rather than a processional wagon. Romulus and Aeneas are, as mentioned, depicted on the chariot, perhaps indicating that the context should be found in the Forum of Augustus. According to Cassiodorus (Chronica: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctorum Antiquissimorum 11): Caesari ex provinciis redeunti currus cum corona aurea decretus est, quo ascendere noluit (‘When Caesar returned from the provinces, he was decreed a chariot along with a golden crown, but refused to mount the chariot’). Augustus was given a chariot and a golden crown (currus cum corona aurea) in 19. This is allegedly confirmed by coins.43 The SC on some of the coins point to a decree of the Senate (RIC 12 393, 313 = BMCR 38–39, 55). We know that an ovation was declined in 20, but the chariot together with honours shown on coinage may infer that after the first decree another was voted, this time a curule triumph.44 This may also be connected to the right to ride in a chariot in Rome in triumphal dress at all times, an honour already given to Caesar in 44.45 According to Rich the chariot was finally placed in Augustus’ new forum, empty, without a statue of Augustus.46 In 46 Caesar was perhaps honoured with a chariot without a statue.47 Further regarding triumphal chariots, Octavian erected a chariot in honour of Antonius on the Rostra after he had executed Sextus Pompeius.48 Indeed, even Marius, Sulla and Pompeius may have been honoured with chariots with their statues.49 The spectrum from ‘regular Republican’ honours to honours of worship was a wide one. But can we really be sure of the link between the Cassiodorus’ currus, the Hispanic coin of 19/8 (BMCR 382, 392, 401; Rich 1998: 116: Parthian honour) and the triumphal chariot in the Forum of Augustus, or alternatively, the Italian coins from just after Actium (RIC 12 258–259 = BMCR 590–591)? And can we really believe that the cornerstone of the new forum, a triumphal chariot, inscribed with the

Epilogue

181

title pater patriae,50 given as an honour to Augustus by the Senate, as mentioned prominently in RG 35, was empty? (On the coins the head of Augustus is at least shown on the obverse). The coins refer to the honour, but the actual forum quadriga is an entirely different matter. Would anybody have understood what the empty chariot represented? The description of the funeral of Augustus by Dio Cassius speaks volumes: a triumphal chariot in the procession contained an image of Augustus (56.34.2). Importantly, the chariots shown on the coins are similar to the coins discussed above, on deification and triumphal rulership, as a tympanon is visible. They are hybrids of a triumphal quadriga and a tensa. As mentioned above, Strocka (2009) believes that a marble chariot body (currus), today in the Vatican Museum, and dated to the first century BCE, originally belonged to an Augustan monument. The floral composition is close to those on the Ara Pacis and related to both Pax and Apollo. According to Strocka there are thus two possibilities relating to the currus: a monument to Apollo or the triumphal chariot on the Forum of Augustus (esp. 42), with Strocka preferring the latter, as mentioned in RG 35.1 (esp. 52). The Vatican chariot was empty.51 Even though this is a quite ingenious suggestion, albeit perhaps rather too fanciful, there are some difficulties. First of all, as already mentioned and as also pointed out by Strocka himself, the chariot does not look like a triumphal chariot, as no Victoria and no similar triumphal ornaments are visible (as found on all the relevant coins, see above). Moreover, associating this chariot with the processional wagon (tensa) on the Claudian relief is absurd. The Vatican chariot is a ‘fast’ type, while the Claudian processional wagon clearly has a very different form altogether (see below for types). Strocka’s suggestion that this is a triumphal chariot symbolizing peace – thus allegedly explaining the flowers (Ara Pacislike) – and that it reflects the Golden Age and Augustus’ role as parens (pater patriae) is unconvincing. This I find most unlikely, as the Res Gestae insists that peace and war/victory always belong together in Augustan Rome: parta victoriis pax (RG 13). Peace was the result of war and Roman victory. The great majority of the summi viri in the Forum Augustum were victorious commanders and their victories and triumphs are an indispensable part of their elogia.52 Similarly, the title of pater patriae hardly excludes triumph and victory. Triumphal rulership was central to all emperors. The Forum Augustum and the Temple of Mars Ultor certainly (also) referred back to the days of the civil war (RG 34: ending of the civil war; RG 35: pater patriae). What should interest us here is the chariot mentioned in the Res Gestae (quadriga). These chariots are symbols of triumph;53 indeed the word currus could be used as a synonym of triumph (Plin., HN 5.36), although this is not

182

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

always the case – Suetonius (Claud. 11.2) uses the word for the elephant chariot at the circus.54 If we accept, with Rich (1998: 115–25; 2013: 557), that a triumphal chariot, originally voted in his honour in 19, stood at the centrepiece on the Forum Augustum (Rich 1998: esp. 123), it seems unlikely that the statue refers to anything but a triumphal chariot – albeit given as an honour in connection with a victory that produced neither a triumph nor an ovation.55 It was decreed in 2 that the temple should henceforth play an important part in triumphal ritual.56 The Vatican chariot may point to apotheosis, as it seems similar to one on the Ephesus Monument, with flower ornaments, depicting the apotheosis of the emperor Lucius Verus. Both are clearly ‘fast’ types.57 Virtus is holding the robes of the chariot, as on the triumphal relief from Spain. Returning to the relief, the form of the processional wagon appears somewhat strange for a triumphal chariot. The traditional triumphal chariot is open at the back, similar to a war chariot, and cylindrical (Zonar. 7.21 talks of a shape similar to that of a round tower) whereas the chariot on the right relief panel has a distinctly different form (right-­angled/rectangular shaped). The typical triumphal chariot of Republican and early Julio-Claudian times is the so-­called ‘fast’ type, with a shell of medium height and sloping side edges, as opposed to the ‘slow’ type, with a high cylindrical shell and straight side edges.58 Augustus’ triumphal chariot may have looked like the one shown on the Boscoreale Cups, as pointed out by Kuttner.59 According to Kuttner’s hypothesis, Tiberius used Augustus’ chariot in his triumph, as did Nero later (Suet., Ner. 25.1). However the wagon on the relief looks like a closed model of the ‘slow’ type, curiously missing the footboard.60 The chariot presented to Augustus in 19 was also of the ‘fast’ type, according to the depiction on the coins.61 The triumphal chariot on the relief clearly does have sloping sides, whereas the processional wagon clearly does not. Moreover, the processional chariot also misses a vehicle access step or footboard, visible at the back of most triumphal chariots, thus suggesting that it was not a triumphal chariot at all. The chariots given as honours to Augustus were clearly all triumphal chariots and very dissimilar in form to the relief wagon. But even if the processional wagon is not a triumphal chariot, it is visibly connected to triumph or at least a triumph-­like procession: the procession has two senators (togati) walking behind the chariot (Livy 5.41.2 mentions that stately robes worn at triumphs were also worn in connection with the tensa) and, as mentioned, the procession in front of the chariot points to the triumphal procession and the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline. The laurel leaf is an integrated part of a triumph, but also a symbol of the deified princeps, as the perpetual victor.62

Epilogue

183

Shortly before his death Caesar was given the honour that at circus races a ceremonial wagon should be drawn into the circus.63 But the triumphal procession/ritual in front of the wagon on the relief makes the circus an improbable context. Indeed I am unconvinced that the slab shows a specific ceremony in honour of the emperor after his death.64 Furthermore, the pompa circensis was hardly important enough to be portrayed on the Claudian relief, focusing it would appear on the most important turning point in the life of Augustus (Actium). Divus Augustus’ image was drawn to the circus not by horses, but by elephants.65 But even so, the idea was to make an obvious connection between triumph and reversed triumph on the relief, with similar processions and four horses in front of the quadriga and the processional wagon. And indeed, the more this is stressed the more obvious it becomes that the last chariot does not look like a triumphal chariot at all. If it symbolizes the Deified Augustus this is of course not an issue. Taken together, this does make the quadriga-Forum Augustus-­theory unlikely. The wagon on the last panel, in contrast to the triumphal chariot on the triumph panel, does not have any ‘triumphal’ decoration. The decoration was linked to the ideology of Roman victory in a strong way, with images of divinities, primarily Victoria. Thus again, if this was meant to be a triumphal quadriga, it is a rather strange one, both in form and decoration. A processional wagon is much more probable, especially when taking the context (mainly the processions) into account. The chariot pediment is surmounted by an eagle, which certainly suits the apotheosis of Augustus. The triumph panel also contains an eagle, on the sceptre of Octavian – indeed the relief seems to connect the scenes through repetition: eagle, rostra and laurel. It also implies Jupiter of course, as on the pediment of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and clearly visible on the Boscoreale Cups (Kuttner 1995: plate 23). Other examples include the Arch of Titus, with the apotheosis on the vault of the passageway, showing the Deified Titus and an eagle, and the base of the column of Antoninus Pius, today in the Vatican Museum. At the funeral of Augustus, according to Dio Cassius (56.42.3), an eagle was released from the pyre bearing Augustus’ soul into the sky.66 The eagle was clearly connected to the apotheosis of Augustus. Taking a closer look at the iconography of the processional wagon, the side of the chariot towards the viewer shows a person carrying the spolia opima.67 Having defeated an enemy commander in single combat, the victor took the dead commander’s armour fixed to an oak stump in form of a trophy and carried this in procession to the Capitoline, similar to a triumph, and dedicated the trophy in the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius. Three examples are recorded in

184

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Fig. E5  The Casa di Pilatos Relief, triumph scene, Augustus in triumphal chariot.

Roman history: Romulus killing Acron, Cornelius Cossus killing Tolumnius, and Claudius Marcellus famously in 222, killing Viridomarus. In 29 M. Licinius Crassus, originally a supporter of Sextus Pompeius and later Antonius, killed Deldo, king of the Bastarnae, and triumphed as proconsul.68 Rich (1996) proposes that Augustus did not publicly question Crassus’ right to dedicate the spoils,

Epilogue

185

but instead Crassus chose not to make the dedication. The relief seems to show Romulus, which together with the front side of the carriage suggests that this referred to the founding of Rome. Aeneas and Romulus should thus be seen as a pair similar to the Forum of Augustus (see Geiger 2008) and the Ara Pacis. Having said that, there was a clear decision to depict Romulus carrying the spolia opima. The inscription in the Augustus forum is highly fragmented, but the spolia opima was probably presented one way or another.69 It is however much more probable that the scene would have been linked more clearly to the person whose carriage it was. What is surely obvious is that both Aeneas and Romulus suit Augustan ideology perfectly, as both were linked to him. The spolia opima had been given as an honour to Caesar, even though he had not slain an enemy commander (Dio Cass. 44.4.3). The first recipient and dedicator of the Temple to Jupiter Feretrius was of course Romulus, whose name Augustus allegedly originally had wanted to take:70 Augustus became the new founder of Rome, after he extinguished civil war. Furthermore, when after the death of Drusus Augustus finally entered the city in 8 (Dio Cass. 55.4.4–5.2; ILS 8894), he delivered the laurel wreath to the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius, not as was customary to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline (cf. Dio Cass. 54.25.4). The temple had been rebuilt by Augustus.71 The restoration of the temple was probably begun before the death of Atticus, perhaps in 32. Although Augustus never earned the spolia opima himself, Dio Cassius (54.8.2) tells us that in 20, when news arrived in Rome that the standards had been returned by the Parthians, the Senate passed a decree that the Temple of Mars Ultor on the Capitoline should receive them in imitation of the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius.72 This was a new honour, but importantly, it placed Augustus on a par with Romulus.73 In Claudian times however, it was thought proper to ‘show’ him with the ‘honour’ of spolia opima (Romulus is of course the person shown on the processional wagon), as the triumphator par excellence, thus resembling Romulus: three triumphs and the spolia opima. This way the spolia opima, similar to the triumph and triumphal honours, including triumph-­like honours, were part of a new trend. As we have seen, triumphal and triumph-­like honours changed dramatically in the Late Republic and during Augustus’ reign, also in relation to Augustus’ funeral. One striking inference, supporting conclusions already reached in this book, is that Augustus’ funeral in many ways characterized the compromise between tradition and innovation so typical for his reign. The funeral procession included a wax image of Augustus in triumphal garb, a

186

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

triumphal chariot carrying his image, and images of the nations he had conquered (Dio Cass. 56.34.1-3). The triumph was far too important only to be used in the triumphal ritual itself. The processional wagon (tensa) thus is used as a symbol of Augustus’s deification on the relief.74 The figure of an admiral standing with one foot on a rostrum, and with a naval ornament, aplustre, from the upper part of the stern of a ship, on his arm, is of primary significance for this context. The boots of the cuirassed admiral are mullei and thus the person is not a god; Virtus is shown with calcei mullei, which is usual.75 Trunk believes this to be Mars (Trunk 2002: 253),76 but why would Mars be depicted with boots in one scene and barefoot in another, as a human in one and a god in the other, as part of what essentially is the same procession (the processional scene, going from right to left). But again, Virtus appears to wear boots on the processional wagon slab, but not on the triumph panel in front of the triumphal chariot. The cuirass is Hellenistic, something that was only used in the field.77 Why should Mars be in classicistic cuirass in one scene, and in Hellenistic cuirass in another? The depictions probably refer to the battle of Actium and the naval battle panel, suggested as the turning point in the life and story of Augustus. In principle the commander may thus be Agrippa, but is probably the victor himself. The naval commander clearly belongs to the slab with the processional wagon, as Honos and Virtus, holding the robes of the chariot, are visible on both slabs. According to Schäfer (2013: 323) the figure is Pompeius, due to an alleged resemblance with Neptune.78 Even if this was so, Neptune was ‘transferred’ to or taken over by Octavian after the victory over Sextus Pompeius, the son of Pompeius Magnus.79 This was emphasized at Actium/Nicopolis, where the inscription to the Victory Monument of Octavian, commemorating the battle of Actium, was dedicated to Mars and Neptune.80 It is unclear why the naval commander is on the panel. As he is standing together with Honos and Virtus there is little reason to assume that this is an actual person at the funeral of Augustus or at the circus. It is more reasonable to conclude that this figure refers in more general terms to the reversed triumphal procession at the funeral of Augustus, with the processional wagon symbolizing the Deified Augustus. Returning briefly to the Forum Augustum, there is precious little to connect this honour of 20 with Actium – indeed there was no ovation, no triumph and no military victory in 20. Octavian, the victor at Actium, thus appears the most credible solution. According to Schäfer a missing panel would have shown Divus Iulius (Schäfer 2013: 323), hence suggesting that the two famous civil war adversaries [Pompeius and Caesar] were both present on the

Epilogue

187

panel, as at the actual funeral of Augustus,81 but this is highly speculative. It appears to be much more likely that there is a clear and obvious connection between the panels with the naval victory and the one with the commander standing with one foot on a rostrum. This is supported by one rather conspicuous object: the aplustre of the admiral standing with one foot on a rostrum, equals the aplustre of the ship with the centaur on the battle scene, symbolizing Antonius (centaur on the prow, see below). There is thus a very strong connection between the two scenes. The Victory Monument from Actium also has a fragmented aplustre (Zachos 2003: Fig. 28). As both reliefs show the Actian triumph, they are unsurprisingly similar in their iconography. This of course does not rule out Neptune, or even Mars, given their prominence on the inscription on the Victory Monument at Actium.82 In fact Apollo and Mars are already given their place on the relief, only Neptune is missing. Having said that, the battlefield uniform (cuirass) does in my view favour the conclusion that this shows Octavian/ Augustus. It appears that we see Augustus, perhaps (partly) in the guise of Neptune: as a result Apollo, Mars and Neptune, as at Nicopolis, are all present. The most fascinating part of the relief is without any doubt the actual naval engagement. The panel has been known for a long time, but only now, together with the Apollo fragment from Budapest, can we be certain that this depicts Actium.83 It appears to present a rather generic battle,84 but there are distinctive features included: the soldiers fighting each other are neither Egyptian nor Eastern, but Romans, as the uniforms are the same: Romans fighting Romans equals a civil war.85 The ships are similar (in contrast to the actual battle), and clearly engaged in fighting, and sailing in opposite directions. The details of the battle scene may not convey ancient naval battles accurately, but the panels show the chaos of such battles. Crucially, the battle scene presents the naval battle of Actium as the turning point in the civil war. Additionally, as mentioned, the centaur suggests that Antonius was the enemy (as Prop. 4.6.49-54).86 The centaur is in fact facing (‘jumping towards’) Apollo, the god of Augustus. According to Trunk a Capricorn is visible on some of the ships, including the ship featuring a centaur (Trunk 2002: 251; cf. Szidat 1997: 9). It does though appear more like a marine ‘monster’ with a snake body, a fish tail and the upper part of a lion/ leopard, or similar (perhaps this is a modern restoration). Importantly, the iconography is rather different from that of the Capricorn on the Augustan aurei.87 The only similar part is the fish tail. The naval engagement itself shows a sinking ship, implying that people died in the civil war.88 There was real fighting! Similarly, the men on the ships are engaged in actual combat.89 The ending of the civil war is connected to Actium and the triumph is proof. Perhaps there was,

188

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

however, another slab, now lost, showing rams as booty (as part of the triumphal scene). Actium produced rostra. Rams would then have been present in all the panel scenes: the battle scene, the triumph scene and the scene with the processional wagon, showing the figure with a foot on a rostrum. The triumphal scene does not in fact show any naval beaks, but we know from Propertius that rams were part of the triumphal procession (2.1.34: Actiaque in Sacra currere rostra Via). If the relief was Augustan then certain problems would arise: as already hinted at above, the Actium triumph of Octavian in 29 was also, but never exclusively, a civil war triumph. In fact it seems to have been a triumph where the enemy was altogether rather downplayed, as an image of Cleopatra was only paraded on the last day. This is mainly a question of chronology: after Actium Octavian received a triumph. After Alexandria he received, logically, another one. Perhaps Octavian himself ignored the problem (one or two triumphs, against one or two enemies?) and it was only resolved in 29, when it could no longer be avoided. At this point it was determined that the best option was to do as Octavian himself had done after Actium: say as little as possible about the

Fig. E6  The Casa di Pilatos Relief, Actium battle scene, centaur.

Epilogue

189

enemy. To show the battle on the relief as an unambiguously civil war would thus seem rather peculiar, at least at first. Perhaps this may be compared to the Fasti Armiternini (see Chapter 6): it is the only local fasti to mention Late Republican civil war enemies by their names and thus it stands out. It follows that the relief may not be from Rome itself, although, as mentioned, this cannot be disregarded entirely. If we were to accept this Augustan date however, a very early date just after Actium and before the return of Octavian is surely preferable.90 Perhaps at a time when the Senate did not know that they would soon vote another triumph against Cleopatra, or, alternatively, at a time when they thought a civil war triumph, as after Mutina, was acceptable. But the 36 ovation had pirates and slaves, the 29 triumphs of Alexandria and Actium had Antonius and Cleopatra only. This idea cannot be disregarded completely; there is certainly no denying the military significance of the victory at Actium. But it still does not explain the processional wagon. According to Hölscher, in his seminal article on ‘Images of War in Greece and Rome’, scholars have traditionally emphasized that realistic battle-­scenes were the domain of Roman art, as opposed to Greek idealism.91 As an alternative he suggests a greater varied perception of warfare and military reality in ancient art: (1) War and fighting as military activity; (2) War as the construction of political dichotomies (defines oppositions); (3) War as legitimized killing; and (4) War in public memory. Civil war in principle fits all these categories, but is left unmentioned in the article, at least in its Roman context. The fighting on the relief is not realistic, in the sense that it showed realistic killing and death, but it still conspicuously depicts civil war and ‘actual’ fighting. Fascinatingly, the fact that civil war is rarely shown in art makes it even more surprising that the two examples of Claudian and Constantinian art (on images of the Arch of Constantine, see Appendix) showing civil conflict are both clearly connected to the Roman triumph (and remember the tabulae pictae at the African triumph of Caesar (App., B Civ. 2.101)); a ritual that, according to our evidence could not be connected to civil war. This is clearly not the case. Turning to the possibility of a Claudian date for the relief,92 Suetonius (Claud. 41) tells the following story: while still young, the emperor Claudius began a history of the period from the death of Caesar, but then decided instead to begin with the end of the civil wars after pressure from his family and because he could not give a truthful account:93 initium autem sumpsit historiae post caedem Caesaris dictatoris, sed et transiit ad inferiora tempora coepitque a pace civili, cum sentiret neque libere neque vere

190

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Fig. E7  The Casa di Pilatos Relief, Actium battle scene, ship sinking.

sibi de superioribus tradendi potestatem relictam, correptus saepe et a matre et ab avia. (‘He began his history with the death of the dictator Caesar, but passed to a later period and took a fresh start at the end of the civil war, realising that he was not allowed to give a frank or true account of the earlier times, since he was often taken to task both by his mother and his grandmother’).

Epilogue

191

A truthful account was no doubt difficult, and pressure from his grandmother Octavia, sister of Augustus, or perhaps more likely his other grandmother Livia, mother of Nero Claudius Drusus, and his mother Antonia, daughter of Marcus Antonius, is undoubtedly also true, but significantly, the problem here seems to have been the imperial family. Octavia, Livia and Antonia certainly all played their parts in the civil war. Problematically, Suetonius emphasizes what Claudius did not do. One might relate that the silence can be taken to imply that Actium as a civil war should be forgotten, as civil wars in general.94 This is not however what Suetonius tells us. If accepted as it stands the ending of the civil wars is emphasized, just as Augustus did in the Res Gestae (34.1): civil war was extinguished and was never to return. Trunk (2002: 251–2) suggests that a civil war relief would be unlikely after Augustus. He points to Suetonius (Claud. 11) and the fact that Claudius was related to Antonius (Trunk 2002: 252). This however, does hardly make a reference to civil war unlikely during the reign of Claudius (and the same might be claimed for Augustan times). The ending of the civil war is at the centre of attention, the memory still very much present. Moreover, the Romans in general focus mainly on the victory and, where appropriate, the subsequent triumph, thus marking at least in principle the end of a campaign and/or war (sense of an ending). Emphasizing the positive outcome of the civil war (RG 34.1), however, does not change what it was; the civil war was still a civil war and mentioned as such, even if people were spared the gruesome details. The relief however is more direct as actual fact ‘real’ fighting and ‘real’ death (sinking ship) is shown. The relief shows the life cycle of Augustus, emphasizing the key element of the imperial ideology: the victory at Actium (and the Augustan peace). In fact it emphasizes Actium in all parts of the relief: the battle, the triumph and the panel with processional wagon and, most likely, depicting Octavian standing with one foot on a rostrum. This was a victory won in the civil war against Antonius. Why this should be accepted in Claudian times and prominently represented on a monument, perhaps even for emperor worship, remains uncertain.95 Pliny (HN 35.94), however, is of great interest here: quas utrasque tabulas divus Augustus in fori sui celeberrimis partibus dicaverat simplicitate moderata; divus Claudius pluris existimavit utrisque excisa Alexandri facie divi Augusti imagines addere. (‘Both of these pictures his late lamented Majesty Augustus with restrained good taste had dedicated in the most frequented part of his forum; the emperor Claudius however thought it more advisable to cut out the face of Alexander from both works and substitute portraits of Augustus’).

192

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

Alexander the Great in these pictures was evidently to be understood as representing Augustus (Westall forthcoming b). Claudius was not a direct descendant of Augustus and thus had every reason to stress his veneration for him. The paintings mentioned by Pliny emphasize that the hands of the figure of War were tied; in Claudius’ reinterpretation of the scene, Augustus achieved peace throughout the world, with Alexander/Augustus in curru triumphante. Peace was secured through victories, thus echoing Augustan ideology (cf. RG 13). The relief stresses that the Actium triumph of 29 was for a mainly civil war. The slab with the goddess Victoria, holding a large laurel wreath in her hands is significant (part of the slab with a processional wagon): if this, as it seems, is indeed a civic crown, it does not point as such to the triumph, in contrast to the rest of the ritual depicted on that slab in question. In 27 Augustus received the civic crown, not for the traditional act of saving the life of a fellow citizen in combat,96 but for saving the lives of citizens (from civil war and foreign threats). The honour was presented to Augustus on the 13 January (EJ, p. 45); the civic crown was not for saving the res publica, but for: [quod leges et iura] p.R. rest[it][u][it].97 Coins with the legend OB CIVES SERVATOS (see Cooley 2009: 265), as well as parallel evidence, support that this honour was given to Augustus in 27.98 In 45 Caesar had been given a similar honour for ending the civil war – a statue with a civic crown was set up on the Rostra.99 The ending of the civil wars occurred with the victories over the enemies Cleopatra and Antonius, and thus the triumph after the victory at Actium is connected to the idea of the saving of the citizens. Chronologically speaking, this suggests that the scene shown on the slab can be dated after 27. It also fits the funeral of Augustus: in a relief summing up the important deeds in the life of Augustus, the battle of Actium, the triumph of 29, the saving of the citizens, and the deification of the emperor, all fit together. The greatest deeds of Augustus as thus summarized in the ‘last’ slab: Actium (statue with rostrum and aplustre, pointing back to the battle slab) and, as a result, the saving of citizens. This is the reason Augustus was deified. The ending of the civil war was part of this ideology (RG 34.1). As I have tried to suggest in this monograph, a civil war triumph was in fact acceptable, as long as the foreign enemy was not forgotten entirely. Only after a victory in an exclusively civil war was this understood of as in breach of traditional practices (it did however still happen after Munda and Mutina). Cleopatra, however, perhaps surprisingly, is conspicuously absent from the panels (as on the inscription of the Victory Monument at Nicopolis). As a result the triumph is depicted as being given after an exclusively civil war, which of course is rather close to the reality of 31. Having said that, I can only agree with

Epilogue

193

Trunk (2010: 36) that the depiction of civil war on the relief was extreme. I also agree with him that the shape of the processional wagon does not point to a triumphal chariot (37). He also, as already mentioned above, suggests that this may be the tensa of the Deified Caesar (Suet., Iul. 76). This does at first seem promising, certainly so combining this with the theory that the triumphator (Octavian) is one of the followers of his processional wagon, on the last slab (36). The triumphator is holding a laurel leaf in his hand in the triumphal scene, as does Mars on the sacrificial slab. Trunk thus suggests that the tensa was used in connection with the dedication of the Temple of the Deified Caesar in 29 and the triple triumph of Octavian (41, cf. 34 for triumph and civil war). This idea requires Actium to be an exclusively civil war victory and triumph.100 But in the case of Actium the enemy was usually not mentioned by name in Augustan times. The Actian triumph was never only a civil war triumph. This changes in Claudian times, as is visible on the Spanish relief. The Actian triumph was granted in 31 for a victory over Antonius and Cleopatra. When they were defeated again in 30, Cleopatra and Egypt logically became the enemy of the Alexandrian triumph. Actium thus became a problem, as Octavian was not ready to present it as a civil war triumph.101 There was a clear blurring, with both Antonius and Cleopatra as enemies, but the Egyptian queen already had her place on the triumph on the last day, and thus as little as possible regarding the enemy was said in the end. The only way I can see this relief being Augustan, is to connect it with the Temple of the Divine Caesar, either from the temple itself in Rome, or a copy of the relief from the same temple. Only in connection with the temple would the naval commander (Octavian) work, with the battle of Actium and the avenging of Caesar (RG 2) as part of the accomplishment of the triumviral assignment. The temple was decorated with rostra from Actium: in front of the temple was the rostra aedis divi Iuli, with rams from the battle of Actium.102 But to connect the battle and the triumph of Actium as an exclusively civil war triumph in 29, or in connection with the Temple of the Divine Caesar, is contrary to everything we know about this triumph, victory and the historical context of the period. A conspicuous civil war monument in the centre of Rome is unlikely, and certainly strange if compared with the Victory Monument from Actium, where no enemy is mentioned. The relief is thus much more likely to be Claudian, as the style also suggests. Crucially, like the Arch of Titus, the relief connected two central aspects of the life of Augustus: victory/triumph, and deification. Moreover the success and the related honours granted are clearly and conspicuously connected to a civil war victory and a civil war triumph, thus stating what the Augustan period was after all not quite ready to do. We should

194

Triumphs in the Age of Civil War

not see this as a correction of past deeds, as this mainly points towards the semantic confusion created by Augustus himself in not mentioning his Actian enemy by name. And nonetheless, even if the relief does depict civil war, it does focus, as does Augustus in the Res Gestae (esp. chapter 34), on the positive outcome of the war: victory, triumph and, as a result, peace. The deification of Augustus consequently became the logical result of his deeds, primarily the victory at Actium. And at the same time the deification became part of the justification for that battle, just as the relief was part of a justification of Augustus and in more general terms the Principate as a whole.103 Therefore, the civil war could indeed be shown. Such themes formed the very foundations of emperor worship and the ideology that underlay it, and accordingly it seems reasonable to place the relief in a previously unknown temple to the Divine Augustus. This was thus another conspicuous civil war monument (cf. the Victory Monument at Nicopolis and so forth) – indeed another conspicuous monument that also celebrated the most impressive and important of Roman victory celebrations, the triumph.

Appendix: Triumphal Arches The honours presented to Octavian after Actium set a precedent for later emperors.1 The Arch of Actium was built on a particular position in the Forum Romanum because it was part of the triumphal route.2 The Fasti Triumphales was probably erected on the Arch of Augustus in or soon after 19 (the date of the last entry), whereas the arch was presented to Octavian as an honour after the victory at Actium (Dio Cass. 51.19.1, who mentions an arch in Rome and one at Brundisium, where Octavian arrived back in Italy in 29, after the victories over Antonius and Cleopatra, including Actium), as part of the batch of honours, including the triumph. Similar honours were given after the victory at Naulochus 36, but the arch was never built.3 This practice however did not begin with Augustus, as arches had been associated with triumphs before his time. The Parthian Arch was different: the Senate appear to have voted an ovation and related honours, including an arch, as in 36 and 31, but this time Augustus declined the ovation. He did not, however, decline the arch, but decided to transform the Actian arch into an Actium-Parthian Arch. This way the triumph-­ like nature of the Parthian Settlement was partly concealed and turned into a victory.4 As mentioned already the term arcus triumphalis may date from the third century CE.5 For the Republic and early Empire we are limited to discussing modern typologies, albeit with some literary, archaeological and contextual evidence. In 36 and in 31 Octavian received arches as honours from the Senate, connected to victories that also produced triumphs. In 20 he received yet another arch, which became the Actium-Parthian Arch. This victory, however, did not produce a triumph. In Republican times the arch was built by an individual, with no involvement from the Senate. By the Middle Empire Septimius Severus could certainly decline a triumph, but accept an arch (see below). Arches outside Rome constitute a different problem altogether. A triumph supposedly could only be celebrated in Rome, and thus a triumphal arch also belonged in the city, within the pomerium. Yet the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum looks very much like a triumphal arch, although, according to Beard (2007: 46), it commemorates the construction of a road between Brundisium and Rome and accordingly is not a triumphal arch. It is however a ‘triumph-­like-arch’. This ambiguity, which only

196

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

came to the fore with Octavian, means that it is difficult for us to define exactly what constitutes a triumphal arch. There are Republican arches,6 such as the Fornices Stertinii in the Forum Boarium.7 Stertinius returned from Spain in 196 but as a privatus did not even claim a triumph.8 He therefore erected three fornices, two in the Forum Boarium and one in the Circus Maximus.9 These were the first ‘triumphal arches’ in Rome. They were built on the triumphal route and according to Livy (33.27.4) erected by Stertinius using his share of the booty, manubiae. This appears to be the beginnings of triumph-­like developments, although it is unknown if he had permission from the Senate, or whether he even required such permission.10 Scipio Africanus later built an arch on the Capitoline (Livy 37.3.7), but perhaps the most interesting development is the Fornix Fabianus.11 After his victory, Fabius Maximus built one of the first triumphal arches in Rome, at the entrance of the Forum Romanum on the Via Sacra (ILS 43, 43a).12 The arch later became a family monument. According to Kontokosta this is the first triumphal arch proper in Rome, being associated to an actual triumph of Fabius, although possibly built later, when Fabius was a censor in 108 (Kontokosta 2013: 9, 23, 29). But Kontokosta’s emphasis on a difference between ‘triumph’ and ‘victory’ is problematic, as the other arches were all placed on the actual triumphal route. If anything they were thus triumph-­like. This may appear a semantic discussion, but with Roller (2013) I believe they were built on the triumphal route for a specific reason and thus must be seen in a strictly triumphal context, whether a triumph was granted or not. According to Roller (2013), place is as important as the form of the monument itself (see Chapter 7, geographical and ideological markers). The intense competition of the Republic is visible in the building of monuments in Rome. Victorious commanders would select the location and form of a new building in order to create a contrast to already existing monuments. The Arch of Scipio was built on the clivus Capitolinus, meaning the triumphal procession would probably pass under it. The Fornix Fabianus was on the Via Sacra.13 The first Republican arches were thus only indirectly connected to the triumph, albeit rather obviously, but this was soon to change. The term arcus triumphalis may be late, but the triumphal arch is Republican. The triumphal arches were a very flexible medium, as becomes clear during the Empire, but it was by definition connected to victory and triumph (or triumph-­like celebrations). It is not difficult to understand why. Pliny explains that the arch, like the column, helped elevate the honorand/builder over all other mortals (HN 34.27, mentioned together with columns, both honours Greek in origin according to Pliny):

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

197

columnarum ratio erat attolli super ceteros mortales, quod et arcus significant novicio invento. (‘The purport of placing statues of men on columns was to elevate them above all other mortals; which is also the meaning conveyed by the new invention of arches’).

Kähler defines arches as (either) Triumph- und Ehrenbogen (Kähler 1939: 373: fornix, arcus), focusing on arches as an honour by the SPQR.14 This is reasonable, and it seems in order to suggest that from the time of Augustus some arches are connected to military victories that also produced triumphs. An arch with a statue built in the first century might be related to a victory and a triumph, but was funded by the commander himself, and only became a Senatorial honour in 36. The arch, as was later the triumph, was monopolized by the emperor and his family.15 A triumphal arch was thus situated in Rome, whereas an Ehrenbogen could be placed anywhere. Triumphal arches must also be differentiated from arches that only hold a dedicative inscription, but were not granted as honours (Kähler 1939: 373). Wallace-Hadrill (1990: 169) suggests: The fornix appears so Roman, in its triumphal associations, its vaulted construction and its republican precedents. But the moment it becomes an honorific arch, it becomes part of an exchange between benefactor and grateful senate and people which is the means of marking the power of the honorand.

This is as it may be, but the two [triumphal and honorific arches] are clearly associated under Augustus.16 From Octavian/Augustus onwards the triumphal arches were given by the Senate and people of Rome. There was flexibility on the issue: the Senate and the emperor incorporated elements from triumphal arches on honorific arches, not least as markers of success, military or otherwise. The three triumphal arches still standing in the centre of Rome all commemorate the victors of extended civil wars – Titus, Septimius Severus and Constantine. This is perhaps no coincidence: like other less conspicuous or permanent honours voted by the Senate, the arches helped to legitimize new rulers and their new dynasties by proclaiming their honorands’ virtues, commemorating their achievements, and – most fundamentally – presenting a visual reminder of their existence. The triumph thus became part of the rhetoric of political legitimation for the victor: the triumph (and associated monuments) served to shape perceptions of the war they celebrated, not just to reflect those wars. The recalibration of victories in civil wars as victories over foreign enemies was also part of this political legitimation, but significantly, the civil war aspect of these victories was rarely denied.

198

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

Flaig has suggested that the Principate itself possessed legitimacy, whereas the individual emperors received only an acceptance, and victory in war was key to the establishment of an emperor’s pre-­eminence.17 Ancient Rome was a society obsessed with war: the concomitant power to rule as exemplified by military triumphs (McCormick 1986, ‘triumphal rulership’) was central to the political process also in Republican Rome. This was perhaps never more crucial than in the aftermath of a civil war, when it functioned as a means of justification within post-­civil-war arrangements. Augustus clearly emphasizes this feature in the Res Gestae (3.1): bella terra et mari civilia externaque toto in orbe terrarum, suggesting triumphal rulership and also accepting that civil war in part had assumed the role formerly performed by foreign wars. During the Later Roman Empire Ammianus Marcellinus makes an interesting point regarding triumphs, civil war, and the tradition of triumphal arches in Rome (21.16.15): ut autem in externis bellis hic princeps fuit saucius et adflictus, ita prospere succedentibus pugnis civilibus tumidus et intestinis ulceribus rei publicae sanie perfusus horrenda: quo pravo proposito magis quam recto vel usitato triumphalis arcus ex clade provinciarum sumptibus magnis erexit in Galliis et Pannoniis, titulis gestorum adfixis, se (quoad stare poterunt, monumenta) lecturis. (‘Now, although this emperor [Constantius II] in foreign wars met with loss and disaster, yet he was elated by his success in civil conflicts and drenched with awful gore from the internal wounds of the state. It was on this unworthy rather than just or usual ground [i.e. against a foreign enemy] that in Gaul and Pannonia he erected triumphal arches at great expense commemorating the ruin of the provinces and added records of his deeds, that men might read of him so long as those monuments could last’).

According to Ammianus, triumphal arches, in Rome and beyond, should not be connected to civil war. However civil war, triumph, and triumphal arches, as we shall see below, clearly went together.18

Vespasian and Titus During the year 69 CE, the year of the four emperors, Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian ruled in succession. After his victory the usurper Vespasian drew on the same ideology of imperial victory as Augustus had before him.19 The triumphs of Vespasian and Titus were celebrated de Iudaeis (bellum Iudaicum, see Rosenberger 1992: 84-7), but an intriguing notice in Tacitus (Hist. 4.4.2)

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

199

describes triumphal ornaments for Vespasian’s commander Mucianus and others, disguised by reference to a Sarmatian campaign: multo cum honore verborum Muciano triumphalia de bello civium data, sed in Sarmatas expeditio fingebatur. (‘In magnificent terms the senators gave Mucianus the insignia of a triumph, in reality for a civil war, although his expedition against the Sarmatae was made the pretext’).

Vespasian and Titus were following convention in celebrating their Jewish triumph in 71 CE, 20 but Tacitus does imply that, reverting to earlier precedents, they could not resist triumphal celebration for the civil war. Indeed, the language of restoration after the victory over the Jews suggests that there can be little doubt that the enemy was partly internal.21 Josephus refers to triumphal celebrations over a foreign enemy as well as celebrations for the termination of civil discord and the return to normality (BJ 7.157). The language of restoration was thus part of the Imperial ideology: Vespasian’s coinage proclaimed LIBERTAS RESTITUTA (‘freedom restored’) and he was hailed as ADSERTOR LIBERTATIS PUBLICAE (‘protector of the free state’). In fact there was no real foreign enemy, only the suppression of an internal revolt. As attested by Valerius Maximus (2.8.4), the Romans could not triumph for recovering what already belonged to the Roman people. He claims that this problem prevented triumphs after the recovery of Capua and Fregellae. It was, however, perhaps never applied to extra-Italian possessions.22 Unfortunately, because the emperor had died by the time of the erection of the arch in the early 80s CE, no titles, no assignment and no reason for the building of the arch is mentioned on the preserved dedicatory inscription (CIL 6.945): SENATUS POPULUSQUE ROMANUS DIVO TITO DIVI VESPASIANI F. VESPASIANO AUGUSTO.23 The panels in the arch’s passageways show the Jewish triumph, on one side booty and on the other the emperor in procession in Rome, with the apotheosis on the vault of the passageway.24 The civil war enemies could still not be openly included but it does not follow that no civil war was fought or that they were ignored in the triumphal celebrations.

Septimius Severus In the prolonged civil war after the death of Pertinax in 193 CE, Septimius Severus proved victorious. Severus even positioned himself as the avenger of Pertinax (SHA, Sev. 5.4-5; Hdn. 2.10.1-9), as Augustus had before (avenging

200

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

Caesar, see RG 2). In 203 CE an arch built by the SPQR was dedicated to Severus and his sons Caracalla and Geta, and positioned in front of the Temple of Concord.25 It depicts the wars against Parthia. The last sentence of the inscription runs as follows (CIL 6.1033 = ILS 425):26 OB REM PVBLICAM RESTITVTAM IMPERIVMQVE POPVLI ROMANI PROPAGATVM INSIGNIBVS VIRTVTIBVS EORVM DOMI FORISQVE SPQR. (‘The senate and people of Rome (have dedicated this monument), on account of the restoration of the commonwealth and the extension of the Empire of the Roman people by means of their conspicuous virtues at home and abroad’) [Trans. Noreña 2011: 226].

The inscription presents itself as justification of Severus’ actions in both civil and foreign affairs: the famous phrase res publica restituta is attested here.27 The return to normality after a civil war and the extension of the borders of the Empire (Val. Max. 2.8.4) reflect the ideology of Augustus.28 This may even be an example of the refusal of a triumph for victory in civil war, but was nevertheless mentioned.29 After his Parthian victory Severus sent a letter to Rome and received the title Parthicus Maximus (Hdn. 3.9.12). On the inscription only the titles Parthicus Arabicus and Parthicus Adiabenicus are mentioned. If Septimius Severus did triumph on his return to Rome, it would have been an unexceptional foreign war triumph.30 According to McCormick (1986: 18) the procession was postponed for four years, but then took place at the time of the marriage of Caracalla, which was also the tenth anniversary of Severus’ accession.31 However, the evidence does not appear to suggest that a triumphal procession actually took place.32 The SHA explicitly states that he declined a triumph – and the stated reason, Severus’ inability to stand for the length of time required, may have been partly true.33 Moreover, the SHA is corroborated by the striking failure of either Dio Cassius or Herodian to mention a triumph in their detailed accounts of his return. His victories, however, were commemorated in numerous other ways, including paintings (Hdn. 3.9.12) and the arch.34 No enemy is listed on the inscription of the arch, although Parthicus Arabicus and Parthicus Adiabenicus are mentioned as part of the emperor’s many titles. Severus clearly used the arch to celebrate both a victory over a foreign and a civil war enemy. This fact also explains the relative ambiguity of the inscription. The traditional details on the enemy are omitted. Nevertheless, as there was no triumph, even though one was possible, a necessary link between triumphs and (triumphal) arches should not be overemphasized.

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

201

Constantine35 IMP(ERATORI) CAES(ARI) FL(AVIO) CONSTANTINO MAXIMO P(IO) F(ELICI) AVGVSTO SPQR QVOD INSTINCTV DIVINITATIS MENTIS MAGNITVDINE CVM EXERCITV SVO TAM DE TYRANNO QVAM DE OMNI EIVS FACTIONE VNO TEMPORE IVSTIS REM PVBLICAM VLTVS EST ARMIS ARCVM TRIVMPHIS INSIGNEM DICAVIT (‘To the emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus the greatest, dutiful and blessed, Augustus, the Senate and people of Rome dedicated this arch, distinguished by [representations of] victories, because, by the inspiration of divinity and by the greatness of his mind, with his army he avenged the state with righteous arms against both the tyrant and all of his faction at one and the same time’) [CIL 6.1139 = ILS 694. Trans. Lee 2000: 83, adapted].

The Arch of Constantine was an honour given by the Senate to the victor and built by the SPQR, as was normal by this point.36 However, Lenski (2008) has not only assigned the arch to the Senate, but also suggested that they sought to persuade the emperor that his victory was given by a pagan deity (suggesting that the instinctu divinitatis recalls the Republican ritual of evocation). Similarly,

Fig. A1  Arch of Constantine.

202

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

other scholars have suggested that the Senate sought to construct Constantine as they wanted him to be, through both the arch and its inscription.37 I would like to emphasize that mentioning civil war so prominently on the arch is surprising and certainly was in breach of tradition. It is similar to the Arch of Septimius Severus, although his arch, triumph or not, also celebrated a foreign victory; the inscription from the Arch of Augustus mentioned in Chapter 6 is altogether less informative, although it clearly points towards a civil war, as no enemy is mentioned. Barnes states that the inscription of the arch was about the liberator who brought peace after he ended the tyranny of a faction. This is all, he suggests, straightforward, and only instinctu divino is ambiguous.38 Such an argument is unconvincing. It is possible that the inscription was written by the Senate, but whatever the case, it is improbable that the Senate would honour Constantine with an arch including an inscription prominently mentioning a civil war victory without the approval of Constantine himself.39 The Senate must at least have known that the matter of civil war was not going to be a problem. The Arch of Constantine clearly and visibly commemorated his victory over Maxentius: the fact that the name of the tyrannus is left unmentioned (‘damnatio memoriae’) suggests here that Maxentius is dishonoured, not forgotten.40 All would have known, as we do today, who the tyrannus was. Significantly, the inscription of the arch must be close to the ideology of Constantine during the period before and just after the battle. On the attic inscription Constantine, the conqueror of 312 CE, is described as having saved the state from the tyranny of a faction, thus unmistakeably echoing the words used by Augustus in Res Gestae 1.1.41 This seems to be universally accepted. The inscription is therefore a statement of justification (bellum iustum). Constantine is also hailed as the founder of (internal) peace (FUNDATORI QUIETIS) and liberator of the City (LIBERATORI URBIS) on the supplementary inscriptions of the arch (CIL 6.1139), again clearly pointing to a civil war victory. If the premise is accepted that Constantine celebrated a triumph upon entering Rome in 312 CE, the arch becomes problematic in as much as no foreign enemy is mentioned. The arch was an honour, built by the SPQR in order to commemorate the victory of Constantine (decreed in 312 CE and finished in about 315), a victory in what appears to be exclusively a civil war. This is certainly a highly conspicuous civil war commemoration. As in the Late Republic, rather than obscuring the obvious truth that many conflicts during the Later Roman Empire were civil wars, the victors utilized that very detail against their rivals – that is to say, they highlighted the fact that their opponents started the civil conflicts, which they then quelled.42 The civil war

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

203

aspect of the triumph of Constantine in 312, without a foreign enemy, is not novel, only surprising.43 Caesar’s Spanish triumph in 45 and Mutina in 43 were over only civil war enemies and thus had already broken the taboo on civil war triumphs. The fact that civil war may be difficult to represent visually should not distract us from accepting that civil war was an integral part of Roman history. The answer to the paradox of how to represent a civil war visually may partly lie in triumphal conventions and traditional representations of warfare in ancient Rome. It was by virtue of their external character that the Romans considered their victories as qualifying for a triumph. The more this is stressed the more the triumph of Constantine becomes an oddity: the Constantine panels on the arch conspicuously show civil conflict. The siege of Verona and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge clearly show Roman soldiers fighting one another, while barbarians are only visible on the non-Constantinian panels.44 Potter even goes as far as to suggest that the battle of the Milvian Bridge depicts Constantine watching Maxentius falling into the river Tiber (Potter 2013: 143-4, 163). The panels also show Constantine’s address (contio) in the Forum Romanum, in military dress.45 The ‘entry panel’ shows Constantine in the same military clothing, including his sword, certainly suggestive of an entry in triumph after a military victory.

Fig. A2  Arch of Constantine, Siege of Verona.

204

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

Fig. A3  Arch of Constantine, Battle of the Milvian Bridge.

Maxentius’ building programme sought to revive Rome’s status as an imperial capital and, if Holloway’s ideas are accepted, some of the reuse of spolia on the arch must be attributed to Maxentius.46 Significantly, the earlier material was re-­ cut into the head of Constantine, thus effectively turning the arch into his arch – and thus reflective of his ideology.47 The reuse of spolia from earlier monuments suggests continuity with the Roman past, and thus would fit both Maxentius and Constantine.48 Yet while the panels may suggest this continuity, the inscription does not. The arch may be fairly traditional, but the inscription is less so, as it honoured Constantine for a victory in an exclusively civil war, a victory that even seems to have earned the honorand a triumph. When he triumphed over Maxentius, this should not have been a triumph at all and thus a triumphal arch seems quite out of order in terms of Roman convention (contrary to the Arch of Septimius Severus, who could have earned an unproblematic triumph had he so desired).49 The inscription of the Arch of Constantine states ARCUS TRIUMPHIS INSIGNIS. This may just mean that it was adorned with representations of victories won by Constantine, and does not necessarily mean that Constantine himself had held a triumph, although it may also imply that he did so. ARCUS TRIUMPHIS INSIGNIS certainly seems fitting on an arch built in memory of a

Appendix: Triumphal Arches

205

triumph and significantly, there is no reason to doubt that the ‘triumphs’ mentioned on the arch included the victoria civilis. Wienand (2012: 487-8) suggests that the plural triumphi means both internal and external victories. Due to the word tyrannus I would still prefer to see this mainly as a commemoration of an internal victory/triumph, but this may at the same time show that Constantine was imitating the ideology of Augustus even more than I have previously suggested (Lange 2012). He supports this with references to the Pan. Lat. 12(9).23.3 and 4(10).30.5, using the word triumph in both the case of an internal and an external war.

Notes Introduction 1 If not otherwise stated, all dates are BCE, and all translations are those of the Loeb Classical Library, with minor corrections. All abbreviations follow those listed in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (third edition). 2 Black 2004: esp. 224 for a critique of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and the alleged irrelevance of history. Similarly, Howard concludes: ‘Given all these academic hesitations, war is nonetheless a distinct and repetitive form of human behaviour’ (Howard 1962: 6; cf. Strachan 2013: 203). This repetitive characteristic also applies to civil war: Thucydides famously describes the impact of the civil war at Corcyra in 427 during the Peloponnesian war (see esp. Thuc. 3.81-85; Price 2001: 6–78; for stasis in the sense of factional rivalry, see Price 2001: 31; cf. Pl. Resp. 5.470d; in Late Republican Rome a factio was associated with oligarchy (RG 1.1; Sall., Iug. 31.15; Caes., B Civ. 1.22.5; B Gal. 6.11.2; Cic., Brut. 44.164; Att. 7.9.4; Rep. 1.44)). He furnishes a substantial excursus on the concepts of stasis and civil war (Price 2001: 12; most other instances of civil strife/war are mentioned only briefly (Thuc. 3.34; 4.1.3; 5.4.3; 5.5.1 etc.)). Hawthorn (2014: 96) explains: ‘He [Thucydides] explains the genesis and nature of one to convey the character of them all’. Thucydides offers this detailed description, as this was only the first of many civil wars to follow (Thuc. 3.81.4-5; cf. 3.82.1: wars to follow). Thucydides emphasizes that stasis has a dynamic of its own. Wickedness and personal animosities reflect human nature (Thuc. 3.82.2; 82.1: at times of peace people did not have to do what they did not wish). Price fittingly concludes that ‘internal war is a state of mind’ (Price 2001: 30). There is a further, personal side to this conflict, something common in civil war (cf. Kalyvas 2006; Martin 2014 on modern (civil) wars). 3 Lange 2012. 4 Cf. Esdaile’s introduction to the Duke of Wellington’s dispatches (Esdaile 2014: viii). 5 For triumph, see Auliard 2001; Itgenshorst 2005; Bastien 2007; Beard 2007; Krasser et al. 2008; La Rocca and Tortorella 2008; Pittenger 2008; Östenberg 2009c; Lundgreen 2011; Spalinger and Armstrong 2013; Lange and Vervaet 2014. For civil war studies, see Chapter 1. 6 See also Lange 2013.

208

Notes to pp. 4–9

7 The lack of political participation is perhaps somewhat of an overstatement. Such an expression of identity through cultural symbols undoubtedly began in the time of Augustus, and while his powers and authority were great, in principle he still had to work through the passing of legislation and elections continued into the reign of Tiberius. 8 For the life and likely chronology of the literary activity of Livy, see Albrecht 2012: 702–5. 9 Verr. 2.1.21.57: in tabulas publicas ad aerarium; Livy 30.45.3; Östenberg 2009c: 87–9. A good example is 182 BCE: Terentius Varro (Degrassi 1947: 554; Livy 40.16.11, giving a precise list of the booty). 10 Livy also, in typical Augustan manner, emphasizes the relation between victory and peace (cf. RG 13). 11 Lange 2009: 106–23. 12 RG 13; Livy 1.19; Suet., Aug. 22; Sen., Apocol. 10.2; Clem. 1.9.4; Laudatio Turiae 2.25. 13 See also Osgood 2015. 14 What happened in between is open to debate: for a correction of the standard view of Coarelli (1968) on the triumphal route, see now Östenberg (2010). She uses an exclusively processional approach, which all but ignores what happened from the victory in the field until the procession started. According to Östenberg no Greek or Roman writer describes the route as going around the Palatine. She concludes that the Arch of Titus was not on the route (Östenberg 2010: 308; cf. Wiseman 2007: 447), claiming that it is not a triumphal arch. This is related to a similar discussion regarding the Arch of Constantine: Östenberg points out that the route of the Republican triumphs might also have changed, which is of course a possibility (cf. Rüpke 1990: 229; Beard 2007: 101–6). Contrary to that Wienand (2012: 213) and Potter (2013: 164–5) suggest that the Arch of Constantine was built on the triumphal route. Whatever the answer, it seems too simple to dismiss the Arch of Titus as a triumphal arch. Champlin (2003: 213) estimates 300,000 to 400,000 people on the route (the Coarelli route, 4 km approximately). Regarding the Sacra Via and the triumphal arches in the Forum Romanum, see Scott 2000. 15 Cic., Verr. 5.77; Ov., Ex Ponto 2.1.41-6; Plut., Mar. 12.3-4; Versnel 1970: 95; Wiseman 2007: 447. 16 See Cooley 2009: 125–6. 17 Welch and Fox 2012: 1, and in general on Just War Theory, with a historical, albeit modern, approach. The classic work is Walzer 2006; for critique, see Whitman 2012: 95–132, esp. 99–101. 18 Cf. Welch and Fox 2012: 3. 19 On the end of the Roman expansion, see Woolf 2012: esp. 201–5.

Notes to p. 13

209

Chapter 1 1 Ann. 1.2; cf. Sen., Apocol. 10.2, in a fictitious speech by Augustus in Olympus against the presence of Claudius: in hoc terra marique pacem peperi? ideo civilia bella compescui? ideo legibus urbem fundavi, operibus ornavi? (‘Was it for this that I brought peace to Land and Sea? Was it for this that I put an end to civil war? Was this why I provided the city with laws and adorned it with buildings?’). 2 The titles we know may derive from the fourth century, but are mostly fairly accurate descriptions of the chapters. See Rosenberger 1992: 179–80, also pointing to badly chosen headings, as whoever wrote them always tried to come up with a warlike heading. Most of the civil war headings are relatively precise. On Florus and the use of Livy and the manuscripts, see Bessone 1993: 80–117; Hose 1994: esp. 138–40. On the title of the work, see Hose 1994: 53, n. 1. Florus does seem to have used other material as well, including Sallust and Caesar. 3 The problem of the tribunate (2.1.1): seditionum omnium causas tribunicia potestas excitavit, quae specie quidem plebis tuendae, cuius in auxilium comparata est, re autem dominationem sibi adquirens, studium populi ac favorem agrariis, frumentariis, iudiciariis legibus aucupabatur (‘The original cause of all the revolutions was the tribunicial power, which, under the pretence of protecting the common people, for whose aid it was originally established, but in reality aiming at domination for itself, courted popular support and favour by legislation for the distribution of lands and corn and the dispersal of juridical power’). The powers of the tribunes are used to define the beginning of the Late Republic. The word dominatio is central and is used together with factio to great effect in RG 1.1 against Antonius in the civil war. 4 See Robb 2010: 150–63 on seditio. The classic study is Hellegouarc΄h 1963: 135–7, 531–2, suggesting that seditio labelled a revolt against an established authority. The term is similar to factio. 5 Augustine in the City of God mocks the Romans for building the Temple of Concordia after the murder of Gaius Gracchus, suggesting that they might have built one to Discordia instead (De civ. D. 3.25; cf. Plut., C. Gracch. 17.6). For the connection between loyalty and land, an important factor in the Late Republic, see now Roselaar 2010: esp. 221–89. 6 2.6(18).1: the war of the Socii was in essence a civil war. See Rosenberger 1992: 35–9 (cf. Dart 2014: 40–1): the war is mentioned as bellum Marsicum (official: Fasti Cos. (Degrassi 1947: 55; cf. Fasti Venusini, Degrassi 1947: 254)), bellum Italicum, and bellum sociale. Florus and Strabo (5.4.2) emphasize that the labels used were not entirely appropriate. Dart (2014: 40) suggests that ‘such a schematic view should be approached with reticence given the debate found in Florus and Strabo as to the appropriateness of these labels’. Sampson (2013: 1) asks ‘when is civil war not a civil war?’. He also separates ‘Italian’ civil war from ‘Roman’ civil war. This may not

210

Notes to pp. 13–14

entirely convince, but it becomes important when remembering that the Romans fought their allies, in Italy. There would always be a question if this might have been, or even mainly was, a civil war. 7 2.10.1: both a foreign and a civil war. See also Chapter 5. 8 2.12.12: Catilina longe a suis inter hostium cadavera repertus est, pulcherrima morte, si pro patria sic concidisset (‘Catilina was discovered far in front of his fellows amid the dead bodies of his foes, dying a death which would have been glorious if he had thus fallen fighting for his country’). Florus is here overlapping the concepts of foreign versus civil conflict. Gruen (1974: 431–2) suggests that ‘It is evident, in retrospect, that the event did not shake the foundations of the state’. This may be true, but is altogether rather unhelpful. If the Romans were aware of this, it would have been only retrospectively. Importantly, Cicero and the Senate decided to use force against Roman citizens. 9 2.13.1: iam toto orbe paene pacato maius erat imperium Romanum, quam ut ullis exteris viribus opprimi posset. itaque invidens fortuna principi gentium populo ipsum illum in exitium sui armavit (‘Almost the whole world having been now subjugated, the Roman Empire was too strong to be overcome by any foreign power. Fortune, therefore, envying a people that was sovereign of the world, armed it to its own destruction’). 2.13.89: Pharsalia et Thapsos et Munda nusquam. et quanto maiora erant, de quibus non triumphabat! (‘Pharsalia, Thapsus and Munda made no appearance; yet how much greater were the victories for which he had no triumph!’). 10 The beginning of a period with every kind of peril, wars, civil, foreign, and against slaves (2.14.8): quodque in annua caeli conversione fieri solet, ut mota sidera tonent ac suos flexus tempestate significent, sic tum Romanae dominationis, id est humani generis, conversione penitus intremuit omnique genere discriminum, civilibus, externis, servilibus terrestribus ac navalibus bellis omne imperii corpus agitatum est (‘Just as, in the annual revolutions of the heavens, the constellations by their movements cause thunder and make known their changes of position by storms, so, in the change which came over the Roman domination, that is, the whole world, the body of the empire trembled through and through and was disturbed by every kind of peril, by wars, civil, foreign, and against slaves, by land and by sea’). 11 2.16.5: Romae capita caesorum proponere in rostris iam usitatum erat; verum sic quoque civitas lacrimas tenere non potuit, cum recisum Ciceronis caput in illis suis rostris videret, nec aliter ad videndum eum, quam solebat ad audiendum, concurreretur (‘It had long been customary to expose on the Rostra at Rome the heads of those who had been executed; but, even so, the citizens could not restrain their tears when they saw the severed head of Cicero on those very Rostra which he had made his own, and men rushed to gaze upon him as once they were wont to crowd to listen to him’).

Notes to pp. 14–15

211

12 2.21(4.12.1): hic finis armorum civilium (‘Thus the civil wars came to an end’). Cf. 2.34.64, on the closing of the Temple of Janus. 13 Interestingly, 2.30.29-39 focuses at some length on the disaster of Varus, relating it also to the disaster at Cannae. 14 Book 1, chapter 17, De Seditionibus, refers to: discordia (1.17(23).1; cf. 1.17(24).1) and seditio (1.17(25).1; 1.17(26).1). 15 See Hose 1994: 60. 16 External wars: pia bella (1.35.1-1.46.10) and civil wars: impiae pugnae (2.1.1-2.21.11) are thus both found in the period 133–30 BCE. 17 2.34.64, referring to the ending of both foreign and civil wars. Florus dates the closing of the Temple of Janus wrong. It was closed in 29 and again in 25. See Chapter 7. Similar to Appian, Florus chose to break the chronological structure by narrating foreign wars separately from the contemporaneous civil war. 18 See also Coker 2014: 85: he asks what we mean by peace and answers that most people mean victory. 19 BG praef. 8: Caesaris nostri commentarios rerum gestarum Galliae, non comparantibus superioribus atque insequentibus eius scriptis, contexui novissimumque imperfectum ab rebus gestis Alexandriae confeci usque ad exitum non quidem civilis dissensionis, cuius finem nullum videmus, sed vitae Caesaris (‘I have appended a supplement to the Commentaries of our great Caesar on the operations in Gaul, as his previous and his subsequent writings did not otherwise fit together; and his last work, which was left unfinished from the operations at Alexandria onwards, I have completed as far as the conclusion, not indeed of civil discord, of which I see no end, but of Caesar’s life’). See Osgood 2006: 51. 20 2.11.3, oddly ignoring the violence in 133, but comparing the lack of violence between citizens before and after Gaius Gracchus. 21 On Livy writing about Roman civil war, see Steel 2013: 121: ‘Romans fighting Romans demanded an intense level of attention’. 22 2.3.3, on the death of Tiberius Gracchus: hoc initium in urbe Roma civilis sanguinis gladiorumque impunitatis fuit (‘This was the beginning in Rome of civil bloodshed, and of the licence of the sword’). 23 The Emphylia also begins with these seditiones (B Civ. 1.1-2, introduction, suggesting that this was the first time violence was used against fellow citizens), followed by the civil war. According to Appian (B Civ. 1.7.58), Sulla’s march on Rome constituted polemos rather than stasis. His definition of civil war required full-­scale battles, although this is of course open to question. I will address this issue in a forthcoming article currently under preparation in collaboration with Josiah Osgood. 24 For a thorough and decisive general criticism of Flower, see North 2010; Rich 2012b. 25 Flower 2010: 149. For a tabulation of the different Republics, see p. 33: ‘Late Republics’: 139–88; 81–60, with 88–81 as a transitional period. See also Arena 2012:

212

Notes to pp. 15–16

1; Steel 2013: esp. 7, cf. 226–35, endorsing the idea; Golden 2013: 189–90, who however is open to the possibility that the period following the murder of Caesar may equal a return to the processes and institutions of the res publica. Lundgreen (2014: 21) claims that Caesar is no longer part of Republican triumphal history but he never explains why this is allegedly different from earlier triumphs during the Late Republic. I will contrary to that claim that many of the triumphs during the whole of the Late Republican period are problematic and part of a development towards the imperial triumph. This process begins with Marius (or even earlier), not Caesar. 26 Cf. Barchiesi (2005: 281): ‘Periodizations are tools that very few trust and everybody uses’. This I find altogether unhelpful. Periodization is a necessary and a useful tool, helping us to understand the past in chronological terms, when looking at historical developments. ‘Trust’ is hardly a fitting description of this process. For Actium as a turning point, see Lange 2009; contra Gurval 1995. 27 For a sceptical reading of concepts of optimates and populares, see Robb 2010 (cf. Sampson 2013: esp. 2; contra Wiseman (2009: 5–32: ‘Roman History and the Ideological Vacuum’), who wants us to acknowledge the political gulf between these two groups. He emphasizes partes = populares and optimates, as political or ideological groupings). I certainly endorse part of his critique. Instead of a bipolar society with two clear-­cut sides in a given conflict, we ought to focus on how alliances and group fragmentation materialized during the Late Republic. Rather than populares and optimates, we might think of factions, also a political concept used in Rome, but perhaps more adaptable in a multipolar system. Similarly problematic is the notion of Republicans versus non-Republicans. 28 See Rich 2012b: 307 for criticism. 29 For the evidence and the scholarship on Sulla, see Santangelo 2007: 1–10 for a brief summary of the period; Levick 1982; Seager 1994; Keaveney 2005: 50–5 on the march on Rome. On 88 as the turning point, see Santangelo 2013: 1. The evidence supporting the traditional periodization of the Late Republic, beginning in 133, is tabulated in Wiseman’s article on the reasons for civil war (Wiseman 2010). 30 Sulla would have claimed that he was restoring order. According to Morstein-Marx (2011) Sulla still had legitimacy, as a duly elected representative of the state. 31 See also App., B Civ. 1.57 on legitimacy, close to the argument of Augustus later, RG 1.1. For a brief summation, see also Livy, Per. 77. 32 Is it turning into the new orthodoxy? On the matter, see famously Gruen (1974). Ungern-Sternberg (2004: 106) emphasizes that the tendency towards normality is ‘. . . justified insofar as none of the main participants was proposing a different constitution, . . .’, echoing the idea of Meier (1997) (‘Krise ohne Alternative’/‘Crisis with no way out’ (Ungern-Sternberg 2004: 91).

Notes to pp. 16–18

213

33 Golden (2013) suggests that the Romans were ‘defining’ crisis as an immediate problem that threatened the state and had to be removed immediately. This excluded long-­term planning and problem-­solving. This seems very plausible. He does however at times present us with too rigid a definition of ‘crisis’ (esp.1–6). The idea that the crisis should be called ‘The Crisis of the Elite Roman Families’ (3) is absurd inasmuch as it misses a main point: their rivalries and the ensuing civil war had a profound impact on all of Roman society (see for example Lucan 1.8-32). He does also rather unfortunately almost entirely ignore the supreme command (the period 82 to 19 BCE witnessed the demise of joint consular supremacy, as the res publica was marked by the monopoly of the supreme command; see Vervaet 2014c: 214–92) – those who had this command could have functioned as the final arbiter, problematically missing according to Golden – most of the problems connected to the tribunate, as well as the impact of civil war. 34 For different critiques of his approach, see Morstein-Marx and Rosenstein 2010. 35 Brunt 1968: 229; cf. Alföldi 1976: 103–4, suggesting that the price of loyalty could not go down and payments were necessary, not voluntarily; Osgood 2006: 44–5; contra Gruen 1974: 384. Again, the focus is on intention, but in the end the difference between an unintentional and an intentional bringing down of the res publica is mainly semantic. The actions of the soldiers and the commanders are important; see also Keaveney 2007. Meier (1997) focuses on the impossibility of making fundamental changes in response to the crisis. 36 Woolf 2012: 132–3. 37 Cf. Simpson 2012: 2; see below. 38 This has rightly been challenged; see Crawford 2008: 632. 39 The Napoleonic wars, for example, involved relatively long periods of peace – even if the plural is used, nobody would claim they are separate and unrelated wars. Other example might include the Peloponnesian War or the First Punic War (see also Strachan 2013: 102). 40 Brown 1971. See now esp. Ando 2008; James 2008; Marcone 2008. See also WallaceHadrill 2010. 41 Cf. Nelis 2013: 245. 42 See also Santangelo 2007: 100–2. 43 Partly acknowledged by Flower 2010: 124. See Sall., Hist. 3.48.8; Cic., Leg. 3.22; Caes., B Civ. 1.5.1, 7.3; Livy, Per. 89; App., B Civ. 1.100. 44 Beard and Crawford 1985: 9 and n. 16, with ancient evidence. Vervaet 2014a: Crassus was elected praetor and probably received a praetorium imperium to bridge the period from election to office. Pompeius, back from Spain in 71, settled for a triumph and the consulship. Neither chose to disband their armies. 45 Vervaet 2011b.

214

Notes to pp. 18–20

46 See also Sampson 2013: appendix 3, 235–41 for a tabulation of senatorial causalities in this period 91–70. 47 On the Marius–Sulla civil war, see Keaveney 2005; Santangelo 2007. 48 Osgood 2006; 2014b; cf. Rosenstein 2004 on the general impact of war. See also Henderson 1998; Breed et al. (2010) on the Roman Republican civil war, although neither offer much historical analysis. Wiseman’s article (2010) on Late Republican reasoning’s for civil war is valuable. On fear in the Late Republic, see Kneppe 1994: 57–76, 218–29. Of great interest is now Wienand 2012: 215, who talks of ‘Die Übertragung triumphaler Sinngehalte auf den Bürgerkrieg . . .’. His book is a great starting point for Constantine, triumphal rule and civil war. Constantine promoted himself as a ‘typical’ Roman victor, as well as a successful warrior, even if the victories were civil war victories. See also Havener 2014; 2015; Östenberg 2014; Börm et al. 2015 (this volume is another fine addition to the growing body of scholarship on the impact of civil war in the ancient world; cf. Price 2001; Osgood 2006; Osgood 2014b; Breed et al. 2010; Wienand 2012). David Armitage is currently preparing a much awaited major study of civil war. 49 Osgood 2006: esp. 1–11; Kalyvas 2006 in general on violence and civil war (Tac., Hist. 2.44 suggests that in civil war no money could be made out of prisoners). Similarly, looting and warfare normally go together, see Duyvesteyn 2005: 73. 50 For more evidence and further problems related to this triumph, see Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566; Itgenshorst 2005: Gesamtkatalog Nr. 259; Lundgreen 2011: 243–4. 51 Vervaet 2012; Vervaet 2014c: 214–92; cf. Blösel 2011. 52 The classic article on violence is Brunt 1966. See also Lintott 1999b; Nippel 1995; Fuhrmann 2012: 89–121. Lintott (1999b) takes the view that Rome was inherently violent, and initial critique of his book suggested that he overstressed civil violence (xix). If anything, I would suggest that he underestimated civil violence and that scholars often underestimate the violence during civil war. 53 Already Caesar received a similar honour for ending the civil war in 45 – a statue with a civic crown was set up on the Rostra (App., B Civ. 2.106; Dio Cass. 44.4.5; Weinstock 1971: 163–7; cf. Dio Cass. 47.13.3, for the triumvirs). 54 As Gruen 1974, although he accepted: ‘Civil war caused the fall of the Republic – not vice versa’ (504). 55 Hölkeskamp 2009; cf. Winterling 2009: 141–63 on Meier. For the view that it was a revolution, see Brunt 1988: 91–2; Crawford 2008, rightly suggesting that the loss of freedom may constitute the Roman revolution. And even if the concept of revolution is accepted, the Late Republic, not just the last phase of the civil war conflict, equals a revolution. 56 Cf. Levy and Thompson 2010: 186–204. 57 Simpson 2012: 14, on modern conflict. 58 See Strachan 2013: 42.

Notes to pp. 21–22

215

59 Knowing of course that even Augustus used it in the plural in RG 34.1. This was a necessity however, as he had claimed them ended already in 36. Writing the Res Gestae he went one further: they were completely put out and extinguished, not just ended upon a temporary basis (bella civilia exstinxeram). 60 Boot 2013a: 101; cf. 2013b. 61 Kilcullen 2009: 2. See now also Murray and Mansoor 2012 on hybrid warfare, combining regular and irregular forces on the same battlefield. 62 Brice and Roberts 2011. 63 Newman (2014: 59) emphasizes that even though the Iraq 2004–7 and the Afghanistan conflicts were civil wars; they had foreign intervention and thus are not always defined as civil wars. Katagiri (2015: 5–8) adds that while civil war is fought between the government and non-­state groups in the same country, extra-­systemic war involves states and insurgents. They do however become inseparable when foreign governments intervene in a civil war, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. 64 See Newman 2014 on civil war as a driving force in major societal change. He emphasizes that ‘Civil wars represent the principal form of armed conflict since the end of the Second World War, and certainly in the contemporary era’ (1). According to Fearon and Laitin 2003 there is no connection between the end of the Cold War and the number of civil wars today. 65 Howard 1962: 6; cf. Howard 1984: 214–15, wars resemble each other far more than they resemble any other human activity; cf. Strachan 2013: 203. However, having said that, each war has its own characteristics. Often the last war cannot teach us about the next war (Strachan 2013: 203). For war as a deeply engrained cultural practice, see Coker 2014: 24. For a more conscious approach, see Levy and Thompson 2010: 201. 66 The classic example is Luttwak’s book on the Grand Strategy of Rome (Luttwak 1976), a book that has been heavily criticized. However, my approach seeks mainly, albeit not exclusively, to draw upon concepts from modern military history in order to make the past more relevant, and to approach the past in new ways. See also Strachan 2013: 256–7. For a defence of Luttwak, at the same time revealing the problem of scholars using, but not understanding, modern concepts of war, especially strategy, see Wheeler 1993 (cf. Lacey 2014; see Frontin., Str. on ancient strategy). 67 See Eckstein 2006; 2008, for the use of Realist International Relations Theory in ancient history, but focusing only on Roman interstate wars. 68 On this approach Rome is unexceptional in that it was aggressive and militarized/ militaristic. This does of course not suggest that Rome was not different, but this may have had more to do with related issues, such as the extension of citizenship (manpower). 69 See Christia 2012.

216

Notes to pp. 22–24

70 Insurgency (a military practice or operational doctrine: an armed rebellion against a constituted authority, similar to guerrilla warfare) as civil war, see Kilcullen 2009: 67. Definition of civil war: ‘armed combat within the boundaries of a recognized sovereign entity between parties subject to a common authority at the outset of the hostilities’ (Kalyvas 2006: 17; cf. Christia 2012: 9–11). According to Price 2001: 33, the definition of an internal conflict often depends on the outcome. See Martin 2014 on the so-­called Helmand insurgency, which he defines as mainly a local civil war. Labels such as ‘insurgency’ are useful for governments seeking to establish legitimacy and define their opponents (esp. 3–5). 71 According to Duyvesteyn 2005 there are typically conventional features in unconventional wars. At the same time she problematizes terms like ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’, as the irregular seems to have become regular today with fewer interstate wars (67). Furthermore, she rightly points out that we have a tendency to associate conventional warfare with interstate warfare and the destruction of the enemy (72). With Simpson 2012 this was not the objective for all parties in the Roman civil war. 72 Kalyvas 2007: 429. 73 The coup d’état of Octavian legitimized in RG 1.1; see Lange 2009: esp. 15. 74 Kalyvas 2007: 416: ‘The description of a conflict as a civil war carries symbolic and political weight since the term can confer or deny legitimacy to a warring party. Indeed the very use (or not) of the term is part of the conflict itself ’. 75 For factions and civil war, see now mainly Christia 2012. North et al. 2013: 170 discuss how groups and factions voluntarily agree to concede control of the military. The fear of faction = fear of one elite faction gaining ascendancy over the other faction (197). See also Lange 2014a. 76 For criticism of the concept, see also Ezrow and Frantz 2013: esp. 31–8; Mazarr 2014. 77 A main criticism of the ‘failed state’ paradigm is that it is too broad a concept. Ezrow and Frantz 2013: 15, 18 talk of ‘risk of failure’ and ‘degree of failure’, which seem rather vague. 78 On administrative services and failed states, see Ezrow and Frantz 2013: 19–22. According to Kalyvas (2007: 428) in a failed state the government army has become indistinguishable from rival militias in terms of loose organization and fractured chain of command. In Rome, however, this is more confused, as all parties in the civil wars had shifting levels of justification, as well as regular troops under their command. 79 Plin., HN 7.96; Flor. 2.10; see above and Chapter 5. 80 Many players during the Late Republican civil war were not however Crawford’s ‘alternative states’, but they were factions. Furthermore, Caesar, Pompeius and their elite associates always wanted to use what they had acquired in their ‘alternative states’ to advance their careers on their return to Rome. The civil war broke out in

Notes to pp. 24–27

217

49 not because Caesar did not want to be leave Gaul but over the terms on which he would return to Rome. Sextus Pompeius, however, was an ‘alternative state’. 81 Once again, this question will be addressed in a forthcoming article I am currently preparing with Josiah Osgood. 82 Val. Max. 6.9.9; Vell. Pat. 2.65.3 (cf. 2.21); Plin., HN 7.135; Gell. 15.4.3; Dio Cass. 43.51.5; 49.21.3. See now also Dart and Vervaet 2014; Dart 2014: 232–3. 83 App., B Civ. 1.38, 47–8; in imperial times it was a colonia: Plin., HN 3.111. 84 See also Florus above; Vell. Pat. 2.15; Cic., Phil. 12.27 (89 BCE): memini colloquia et cum acerrimis hostibus et cum gravissime dissidentibus civibus (‘I remember parleys both with Rome‘s bitterest foreign foes and with fellow countrymen in open revolt’). 85 According to Mouritsen (1998: 7) ‘. . . a fight for citizenship cannot easily be reconciled with a subsequent fight to destroy Rome’s power’. This fails however to take the issue of civil war into account. See Kalyvas 2006 in general on violence and civil war. Civil war has two distinct features that set them apart from interstate conflicts, both focusing on violence: barbarism and intimacy (Kalyvas 2006: 11). For the brutalities of the war, see Dart 2014: 3, 100–110. The war against the Socii resembled a civil war. 86 A vital part of justification in a civil war is the claim to avenge a father, or an emperor; see Hekster 2007: 98; in Livy’s own time the Albans were of course Roman citizens. 87 McCormick 1986; Hekster 2007, who suggests that mock triumphs should be seen in this light as well, as alternatives to fighting, military victory and triumphs (103–4). And see now Wienand 2012 on the triumphal rulership of Constantine, stressing the importance of both foreign and civil wars; cf. Hölscher 1967. On the introduction of victory-­cults, with reservations, see Eckstein 2006: 222–4. In 82 a coin of Sulla shows Victoria placing a crown atop Sulla’s head, something until then reserved for the gods (RRC 367; Koortbojian 2013: 23, cf. 138–43). The use of Imperator as a name has similar connotations. On the Boscoreale Cups Augustus is seen as world ruler, seated and presented with a Victoria (see Kuttner 1995, plate 2). The list is virtually endless. 88 Again, I am not suggesting we look at the civil war in the Late Republic as entirely similar to this modern type of conflict. There are, however, enough similarities in order to use these modern approaches. We gain possible insight into the question of legitimacy, and can use the approach on the ancient evidence. 89 On peace see Wheeler 2011: 82–4, who rightly asks what the ancients meant by using the phrase ‘peace’. 90 See Walzer 2002. According to Cicero (Att. 7.14, 49 BCE) equidem ad pacem hortari non desino; quae vel iniusta utilior est quam iustissimum bellum cum civibus (‘I continue to urge peace. Even an unjust peace is better than the most just of wars against citizens’). On pax civilis in Cicero, see Manuwald 2007: 851, with evidence on internal and external peace. 91 See Chapter 4; cf. Lange and Vervaet 2014.

218

Notes to p. 27

92 Droge 2011/2012: 85 concludes that there is no such thing as an Augustan ideology. He seems to believe that because scholars use the word ‘ideology’ it means one singular plot, which is rather ill-­advised. Galinsky in chapter 6 on ‘Cultural Vitality’ in his new book also readdresses the old issue of ‘ideology’ or ‘ideologies’ (Galinsky 2012; cf. Galinsky 1996), commenting that ‘There was nothing monolithic about Augustan Culture’ (148). It is difficult to disagree, and I am not sure many do or ever did, even those of us who write of ‘ideology’. 93 Östenberg (2007) describes these new trends as follows: ‘New questions are raised, some of which, inspired by the trend of ritual and performance studies, focus on the pageant and its impact on Roman spectators and identity. Sceptical voices also set out to deconstruct much of our alleged common knowledge of the triumph. Thus, Mary Beard has recently questioned our ability to reconstruct the historical pageants, and emphasizes instead the role of the literary descriptions as mimetic representations and active force in the Roman cultural memory.’ 94 Beard 2007: 187–218 on Mommsen’s systematization of the triumph and the official requirements for receiving a triumph. See also Gruen 1990: 132, who claims that there were no clear patterns for awarding or indeed declining triumphs. The decisions of the Senate were ad hoc according to this view. Against these views see now the fair criticism of Dart and Vervaet 2011: 275, n. 82: ‘At any given time in the history of the Republic, there certainly existed a set of largely customary rules and regulations’. The fascinating question arises as to whether exceptions suggest that there were no rules or conventions for obtaining and granting triumphs. The answer must be no. Whitman 2012: 190, writing on whether there were rules for warfare, emphasizes: ‘It is in the nature of legal rules that they are never uniformly obeyed. Even when someone draws a pistol and refuses to obey, the law remains the law. The test of whether a given rule is a valid rule of law cannot be whether or not that rule is uniformly obeyed. If that were the test, then tax law would not be a law, criminal law would not be law, or so on’. Importantly, even if Mommsen ended up creating too rigid a juridical system, he did concede that triumphal regulations were inconsistent (Mommsen 1887.1: 126–36, esp. 134; see also Lundgreen 2014 on this issue; Vervaet 2014c: 68–130). Lintott points out that Mommsen’s Römisches Staatsrecht is a theoretical more than an empirical work (Lintott 1999a: 8; cf. Pina Polo 2011b: 2). Importantly, Winterling (2009: 123–40; cf. 12–13) suggests that Mommsen full well knew of the differences between political reality and law. The criticism of Beard on the approach of Mommsen and subsequent scholars seems far too extreme and overly revisionist. At times it appears that part of this discussion is related to a question of semantics: are we talking about rules and regulations, conventions, or laws, when we talk about triumphs? This is important, but the only sensible way to answer that is to look at the context of the triumph, using the evidence at hand.

Notes to pp. 27–29

219

95 Rüpke 2012: 62–81 sensibly talks about the triumph as a ritual, but he does not however spend much time on what actually happened before the triumph itself. He mentions the display of military success, and at the same time the rewards of Empire were shown (2012: 62). And indeed, the booty could be invested in temples and other buildings. Rüpke 2012: 62; cf. Orlin 1997: 66–73 on temple vows. Hölkeskamp proposes that the public nature of the triumph was essential to the identity of the Late Republican ruling class (Hölkeskamp 2004: esp. 147–51; 2010: esp. 57–9). While this is no doubt true, it is important to remember that military defeat does not always seem to hinder electoral success (Rosenstein 1990 (for criticism of Rosenstein, see now Rich 2012c); Waller 2011. For military defeat during the Republic, see now also Clark 2014. 96 Lange and Vervaet 2014. For triumph as a military ritual, see Rich 2013. 97 Rich 2014; Pittenger 2008: 295–298; Vervaet 2014c: 68–130. Armstrong (2013: 20–1) suggests that the triumph acknowledged that the community was correct in granting imperium to a particular individual. This seems however uncertain for Early Rome, but fits the republican development. 98 Spalinger and Armstrong propose that the triumph was not something typical Roman, but ‘. . . myriad rituals of triumph which were present throughout the Mediterranean’ (Spalinger and Armstrong 2013: 1). Although this comparative view is not without interest, they confuse triumph, meaning victory and/or victory celebration with the Roman ritual of the triumph, something specifically Roman. This should be defined as more than just a spectacle/procession. The Romans proclaimed military victory, as did others, but a Roman victory was closely followed by rituals, religious and political, in order to receive the highest honour Rome could bestow. Erskine (2013) is the voice of caution in this matter, emphasizing the differences between Hellenistic and Roman victory celebrations. Erskine’s article clearly shows the problems of applying the Roman concept to Hellenistic processions. What can be said is that there are certainly elements in Roman as well as non-Roman rituals that are similar. But the sacral and political context of the Roman triumph is quite specific. I believe this particularity of the Roman ritual is the only way to understand fully Antonius’s triumph in Alexandria (see Chapter 2). 99 According to Assenmaker (2012) imperator does not only have a technical meaning of a commander hailed as imperator during the later parts of the Late Republic, but every (pro)magistrate holding imperium could use the nomen imperatoris. 100 The classic treatments are Mommsen (1887.1) and Ehlers (1939). 101 See for example P. Licinius Crassus, cos. 171: Livy 42.49.1-7; cf. 45.39.11. 102 A term for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia, usually attributed to Arthur Conolly, but made famous by Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim, from 1901. 103 Black 2004: 10; Martel 2007: esp. 1–8: there is a tendency to view victory as winning and in terms of territory.

220

Notes to pp. 29–33

104 Murray and Sinnreich 2006: esp. 1, 7; Katagiri 2015: esp. 97: in 2011 the US objective in terms of withdrawal from Iraq was to have a stable government in place to control the civil war. He talks of a Pyrrhic American victory in 2011 (98). The first phase of the war was conventional and won by the US-led coalition. In 2003 this turned from a conventional to a guerrilla war. 105 Degrassi 1947: 74–7, not including two naval triumphs with different wording: 260, 241 BCE. 106 Flaig 2004: 37; Degrassi 1947: 553. 107 Black 2004: 49–59; Black 2012; Morillo 2013: esp. 37–44. On ancient history and ‘New Military History’, see Brice and Roberts 2011: 2–4; Wheeler 2011: 58–64; cf. Rich and Shipley 1993a; Rich and Shipley 1993b; Hoyos 2011: 1: ‘The Companion aims to fit the warfare into its complex environment to illuminate the culture, background, demography and postwar fortunes of the two states that fought each other to the death over a hundred and twenty years.’ 108 See Symonds 2011: 88–9. According to Newman (2014: 34) states that have experienced a history of armed conflict are more prone to do so in the future. 109 Black 2012: 45. 110 Eckstein on Rome (2006), Hodkinson on Sparta (2009), and Pritchard on Athens (2010).

Chapter 2 1 Rich 1976: 61–2. Lundgreen 2011: 189 is correct in stressing that in comparison to Val. Max. 2.8.4, suggesting that the empire needed to be enlarged to gain a triumph, Livy 38.50 is less rigid. 2 Florus 1.27 emphasizes eagerness for triumph. 3 Lundgreen 2011; cf. Lundgreen 2014: he contrasts ‘rules’ and ‘principles’. 4 See Richardson 1975; Develin 1978; Beard 2007: 199–214; Pittenger 2008; Lundgreen 2011; Rich 2013; Vervaet 2014c: 68–130. The granting of a triumph involved flexibility, political skill and personal influence, as well as the right war. 5 A point made by Livy 28.38.4. See now Vervaet 2014c: esp. 103–4: Scipio met the requirements of triumph, as he held a lawful imperium auspiciumque at the time of victory. The Senate, however, declined this on the ground that, more maiorum, only regular magistrates triumphed. 6 Cic., De or. 2.195; Livy 28.9.16; Suet., Claud. 24.3; SHA, Sev. 14.7; Serv., Aen. 4.543. The ovation was not however obliged to enter through the Porta Triumphalis. 7 List of ovations from 211: 211: Claudius Marcellus; 207: Claudius Nero; 200: Cornelius Lentulus; 196: Cornelius Blasio; 195: M. Helvius; 191: M. Fulvius; 185: Manlius Acidinus Fulvianus; 182: Terentius Varro; 174: Claudius Centho; 132:

Notes to pp. 33–36

221

M. Perperna; 99: M. Aquillius; 71: Licinius Crassus; 44: Julius Caesar; 40: Antonius and Octavian; 36: Octavian. 8 On ovations see Rohde 1942; Versnel 1970: 166–8; Richardson 1975. 9 According to Östenberg (2009c: 48) ‘The ovation was often given to a general who, though he had been successful in war, had failed to fulfil the traditional requirements for a triumphus’. The question arises when ovations were thus given and when the victor was just turned down and as a result did not triumph at all? 10 minor triumphus: Plin., NH 15.19; Serv., Aen. 4.543. 11 Livy 40.38 has no mention of military exploits, similar to Gellius’ (5.6.20, 21) ‘dustless’ and bloodless victories. 12 Livy 37.60.6; 38.47.5-6; Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 554. 13 See below and Chapters 5 and 7. 14 Richardson 1975: 61; cf. 60–2; Val. Max. 2.8.1; cf. Oros. 5.4.7. Against the historicity of the ‘law’ see Beard 2007: 209–10; Rich 2013: 553 is sceptical, although not entirely dismissive. Rich 2014: 235 suggests that they are not a statute law, but merely informal customary expectations. Valerius Maximus dates the law to 62, but this is otherwise unattested. 15 Oros. 5.4.7; Suet., Tib. 2.4: usque in Capitolium, Dio Cass. 22, fr. 74.2. 16 Suet., Tib. 2.4; Val. Max. 5.4.6: daughter. On triumphs without senatorial approval, see also Lundgreen 2011: esp. 236–46. 17 Cf. Luke 2014: 24–5: Claudius’ triumph was illicit and thus was both unique and extraordinary. According to Luke this suggests individual expression in the spectacle (Luke 2014: 25). This is true, but this can be said about most of the triumphs recorded in any detail. Rosenstein (1990) claims that the Romans blamed the soldiers for defeat, not the commander (see also Rich 2012c: 88–94, refuting Rosenstein). The number games associated with the granting of a triumph suggests Rosenstein is somewhat overconfident on the issue. Military defeat certainly did not help a commander’s wish for a triumph. 18 See Lange 2011: 621–2. 19 Cf. Plut., Pomp. 72.4; Plut., Caes. 46.1-3. Caesar claims 15,000 dead (B Civ. 3.99.4). See now Westall 2013. 20 For a very different reading of the 5,000 and the convention in Valerius Maximus, see Goldbeck and Mittag 2008: 63, n. 37, proposing a rather unlikely critique of Augustus. 21 Livy 28.38.4; Dio Cass. 17 fr. 56; Val. Max. 2.8.5. 22 Lost on Fasti Triumphales; Degrassi 1947: 551. 23 Livy 28.9.9-11; Val. Max. 4.1. ext. 3; lost on Fasti Triumphales; Degrassi 1947: 551. 24 Dio Cass. 44.4.3; Rohde 1942: 1890–1903, s.v. Ovatio, at 1899. 25 See also Pittenger 2008: 68–71, 159–65. 26 Richardson 1975: 56; cf. Auliard 2001: 159–60; Lundgreen 2011: 251; contra Rüpke 1990: 227–8. 185 BCE: Manlius Acidinus Fulvianus (lost on the Fasti Triumphales;

222

Notes to pp. 36–39

Degrassi 1947: 554). Manlius did not bring his army back (Livy 39.29.4-6); 182 BCE: Terentius Varro (lost on the Fasti Triumphales; Degrassi 1947: 554; Livy 40.16.11). The context is not mentioned by Livy. 27 Richardson 1975: 56. 28 Perhaps mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales: see Sumner 1965; Richardson 1986: 76–7. 29 Livy 34.10; Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 552. 30 Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 556; Livy 41.28.3. 31 And a full triumph to the praetor Cornelius Lentulus over the Gauls, Degrassi 1947: 551; Richardson 1975: 57. 32 Plut., Crass. 9.3: under siege on a hill the slaves used ladders made from vines and climbed down, surrounded and launched a sneak attack, routing the Romans. 33 99 BCE: M. Aquillius in Sicily (Degrassi 1947: 562); 71: Licinius Crassus’ ovation over Spartacus (Degrassi 1947: 565); 36: Octavian’s ovation; see Chapters 4 and 7. 34 See Rosenberger 1992: esp. 161. 35 At times of crisis slaves were frequently mentioned, see Sall., Cat. 30.2; App., B Civ. 1.60. 36 Or so according to Val. Max. 2.8.7. 37 See Chapter 7. 38 Gell. 5.6.20-1 on slaves and pirates as enemies. 39 See Chapter 3. 40 Itgenshorst 2005: esp. 219–21; cf. Ridley 2003: 97–8; Cooley 2009: 120–1. 41 Feeney 2007: 167, n. 1. 42 List of Alban Mount triumphs: 231: Papirius Maso; 211: Claudius Marcellus; 197: Minucius Rufus; 172: C. Cicereius; 9: Drusus (ovation and Alban Mount triumph, never celebrated due to his death). Caesar did not celebrate an Alban Mount triumph in 44. We have a quite different and novel form of ovation, namely the ovation simply as a ceremonial entry into Rome, without a preceding war. ex monte Albano suggests that this was where Caesar was coming from. See also Chapter 3. 43 On the Aerarium, see Polyb. 6.15.7. Usually it was financed by the commander from booty acquired on the campaign (Livy 33.23.9). 44 Livy 33.23.3: iure imperii consularis; 42.21.7: sine publica auctoritate; cf. De vir. ill. 45.6. According to Lundgreen 2011: 210–11, 252–3 the possession of an independent imperium was a requirement for triumph (cf. Richardson 2008: 60; Drogula 2015: 353; contra Beard 2007: 298; Rich 2013: 555–6). This, however, is not entirely accurate. Vervaet (2014c) makes the point that all who ever celebrated a public triumph under the Republic until Caesar’s legates, who had no independent imperium, did so because of victories won when holding independent imperium (Fabius and Pedius had no independent imperium: Dio Cass. 43.42.1; cf. Dio Cass. 43.31.1; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567) and thus auspicia of their own,

Notes to pp. 39–41

223

prerogatives they also held on the day of the (un)authorized triumph. This concerns a fact of constitutional history regardless of, and distinct from, the issue whether the Senate authorized a public triumph or an ovation. Subsequently, he suggests (Vervaet 2014c: 120, n. 157): ‘To the best of my knowledge, all commanders who are on record for having celebrated triumphs in Monte Albano or even inuito senatu, too, met the basic requirements in terms of imperium auspiciumque’. See also Chapter 4. 45 Zonar. 8.20.7; Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 550. Approval by the popular assembly rather than the Senate is also reported in 449 and 356: Livy 3.63.8-11, 7.17.9; Dion. Hal. 11.50.1; cf. 6.30.2-3. 46 Postumius Megellus: Livy 10.37.6-12; Dion. Hal. 17/18.5.3; Appius Claudius Pulcher: Oros. 5.4.7; Suet., Tib. 2.4: usque in Capitolium, Dio Cass. 22, fr. 74.2. 47 Vell. Pat. 2.82.3-4; Plut., Ant. 50.6; cf. Pelling 1988: 241, dismissing this as a triumph, and instead suggesting a Dionysiac procession. Levick (2010: 43) talks of a parody of a Roman triumph. 48 47 BCE: Degrassi 1947: 566; Dio Cass. 43.1.2, suggesting that nothing was conquered and that he had not fought an enemy, the result being that only money from plundered allies was sent to Rome. 43 BCE: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567. 49 See Weigel 1992: 28–9, with further evidence on 47 BCE, a dispute between Q. Cassius Longinus and M. Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus (Dio Cass. 42.15-16); see Chapter 4 regarding 43 BCE. 50 Polyb. 6.15.2-8: here he explains that the Senate essentially had three instruments to keep the consuls in check, including the ratification of the commanders’ acts and grants of public funds for triumphs; Livy 31.47.7: ut triumphanti sibi in urbem invehi liceret (‘that he be allowed to enter the city in triumph’). 51 Lundgreen’s (2011: 246; cf. Beard 2007: 63) suggestion that we know too little about this particular ceremony is misleading: it features in the debates mentioned by Livy and the topographical and historical context of the Alban Mount triumph are well attested. For the topography and the procession route, see Lugli 1923. 52 contra Lundgreen 2014: 25, who claims that there was no reason to listen to protests due to small numbers. This view is not however supported by the ancient evidence, on the contrary. See Lange 2014b. 53 See MRR 1.264: 268–9. Marcellus held the imperium almost uninterruptedly from March 216: praetor, then, after a short spell as privatus and legatus pro praetore in 215, consul 215, then, after having abdicated and being privatus again for a short time, as extraordinary proconsul, then again as consul in 214, command prolonged until 211. See Vervaet 2012: 86–94; Vervaet 2014b: 145, n. 76. 54 Livy 25.28-31. See Edwell 2011: 328–9 for further evidence. 55 Develin’s conclusion that ‘Marcellus had no complaint’ (1978: 432) and thus accepted the ovation as a compromise is contradicted by his celebration of an Alban Mount triumph and the statements in Livy.

224

Notes to pp. 41–42

56 We may wonder: was the triumph ever a ritual to end wars? The ‘sense of an ending’ was certainly implicit in the ritual. On the triumph as a ‘Kriegsbeendigungsritus’, see Rüpke 1990: 225–6. On triumph and closure, see Westall 2014, also suggesting a difference between war and campaign (there certainly was such a difference, in military terms). He is also right in emphasizing that triumph did not mean the end of warfare and that closure was thus not fundamental to triumph. However, peace and the ‘sense of an ending’ may have become much more vital during the civil war period. Livy (3.10.4) provides an early (and perhaps fictitious) precedent for such a troopless ovation (alteri consuli datum, ut ovans sine militibus urbem iniret (‘The other consul was permitted to enter the City in an ovation, without soldiers’)). The parallel report of Dion. Hal. 9.71.4 says nothing about the absence of troops. More importantly, the ovation may have been such a dead tradition by 211 that Marcellus could reinvent it as he wished. Eight ovations are reported for the period 503–360. Thereafter no ovations were held until Marcellus’ in 211, except for a possible ovation for Curius Dentatus. The sole reference to Dentatus’ ovation is De vir Ill. 33.4. However, Denatus’ fourth triumph is mentioned in the Fasti Triumphales (Degrassi 1947: 74–5, 546). The first three triumphs must have been in the period between 291 and 282, where the Fasti Triumphales has a gap. For this possible reconstruction, see Brennan 1994, placing the ovation of Denatus in 283. 57 See Richardson 1975: 61–2. This requirement is not part of the lists of Val. Max. 2.8 and Gell. 5.6. 58 According to Livy, Marcellus was granted an imperium on the day of his entry (26.21.5) and ‘On the day before his entry into the city he triumphed on the Alban Mount. Then in his ovation he caused a great amount of booty to be carried before him into the city’ (Livy 26.21.6: pridie quam urbem iniret in monte Albano triumphavit; inde ovans multam prae se praedam in urbem intulit). Livy then mentions that a Carthaginian fleet landed 8,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry on Sicily (26.21.14). The war in Sicily was not concluded, as mentioned by Livy 26.21.14-17. Val. Max. 2.8.5 suggests that Marcellus did not receive a triumph because he was not a magistrate, as Scipio in Spain (Livy 28.38.4). However, Marcellus’ extraordinary proconsulship should be dated to 215 (see Livy 23.30.19; MRR 1.255; Vervaet 2012: 86–94). 59 Livy 26.21.2: exercitum deportare non licuisset. There had of course been recurring problems at Rome after Cannae such as panic, illness and religious hysteria. 60 See Lazenby 1998: 106 and esp. 115. 61 Contrary to this Bastien 2007: 236–8, 247; Pittenger 2008: 84. 62 It must be assumed that Plutarch saw the spolia opima as a triumph, or at least something comparable. 63 Beck 2005: 315 and n. 72: he sees the Alban Mount triumph as a result of senatorial consensus policy; contra Münzer 1899: 2750; Flower 2000: 40: ‘His triumph on the

Notes to pp. 42–43

225

Alban Mount implied in a very public way that the senate had not given him adequate recognition’. 64 Brennan (1996: 324; cf. Rosenberger 2009: 32) accepts this as a protest, but then continues: ‘yet his acceptance of the ovation shows that he thought the Alban triumph was not enough in itself ’. But the compromise was surely the ovation, not the Alban Mount triumph. The ovation was not enough and thus he chose to celebrate an Alban Mount triumph. See also Pittenger 2008: 45. On the unprecedented case of two celebrations for the one victory, see Richardson 1975: 55. This, however, is far less dramatic if only one was officially sanctioned. 65 To claim, with Pietilä-Castrén (1987: 56), that ‘Marcellus resolved the awkward situation by celebrating a triumph in monte Albano’ is to downplay the severity of the situation and the fact that his political adversaries in the Senate had denied him a triumph. 66 On the spolia opima, see Rich 1996; Flower 2000. 67 Degrassi 1947: 551; Itgenshorst 2005: 267. 68 Quinctius Flamininus (Livy 34.52.3-4; Degrassi 1947: 78–79, 553) and Aemilius Paullus (Livy 45.40; Plut., Aem. 32–34; Diod. Sic. 31.8.9-13; Degrassi 1947: 80–81, 556) both celebrated three day-­triumphs, Pompeius Magnus two days (Plin., HN 7.26.98–99; App., Mith. 116–117; Plut., Pomp. 45; Dio Cass. 37.21.2; Degrassi 1947: 84–85, 566). 69 Cf. Briscoe 2012: 737. 70 On the temple(s) and Marcellus, see McDonnell 2006b: esp. 206–40. Most likely Marcellus sought to usurp the monument of the Fabii Maximi (218–19: Q Fabius Maximus’s Temple to Honos 233). For Fabius’ monument, see Pietilä-Castrén 1987: 48–51. 71 McDonnell 2006b: 218–27. 72 See McDonnell 2006b: esp. 206–40. Marcellus displayed precious artworks from Syracuse in the temple(s) and according to Livy (25.40.3) visitors came from far and wide to see these. See Cadario 2014: 83. 73 Livy 27.25.7-10; Plut., Marc. 28.1. Marius later used his martial reputation to challenge senatorial consensus (McDonnell 2006b: 265), and dedicated a temple to Honos and Virtus, called monumentum Marianum (Cic., Planc. 116; Val. Max. 2.5.6). 74 Livy 27.26.13-14; Val. Max. 1.6.9; see Rich 2012c: 94–100 for similar examples. 75 260: C. Duilius; 257: Atilius Regulus; 256: Manlius Vulso Longus; 254: Fulvius Paetinus Nobilior; 254: Aimilius Paullus; 241: Lutatius Catulus; 241: Valerius Falto; 228: Fulvius Centumalus; 189: Aimilius Regillus; 188: Fabius Labeo; 167: Cn. Octavius. For a more developed argument of the naval triumph and its part of Roman naval history, see Lange and Rich forthcoming. See also Rich 2014: 218 on ship’s crews. Even though Polybius 1.20.12 gives the impression that nothing much happened on the naval front before the First Punic War, this seems an overstatement.

226

Notes to pp. 43–46

See Steinby 2007, who clearly exaggerates the significance of a Roman navy before the Punic War, and for a more balanced view, see now Beck 2013. In 259 L. Cornelius Scipio (cos. 259) celebrated a triumph ex Poenis et Sardin(ia) Corsica (Degrassi 1947: 76–7, 548; MRR 1.206). This was a naval command, but he did not get a naval triumph. This suggests that Duilius was most likely given the honour as a special honour in 260. Only later did it become more usual for naval victories to produce naval triumphs. A retrospective use of naval triumphs in the Fasti Triumphales would surely have meant that Cornelius Scipio would also have ‘received’ one. 76 See mainly Polyb. 1.21-22; Zonar. 8.10-11. 77 Cf. Fasti Urbisalvienses for 167 (Degrassi 1947: 339), but also in Livy, e.g. 37.58.3, 60.6; 45.42.2; cf. Plin., HN 34.13. 78 See now FRHist, Vol. 1: 293–304 (JWR). 79 CIL I2 25 = ILS 65. See Plin., HN 34.20; Sil.Ital. 6.663-6; Quint., Inst. 1.7.12; Serv., Georg. 3.29 on the columna rostrata. See Kondratieff 2004. 80 On the authenticity of the inscription, see Frank 1919; Pietilä-Castrén 1987: 30–1; Chioffi 1993; Bleckmann 2002: 116–25; Kondratieff 2004: 10–16, with further bibliography. 81 Kondratieff (2004: 11–14) accepts that it is contemporary or near-­contemporary to Duilius and suggests an Augustan restoration (13). This is wisely connected to Suet. Aug. 31.5 and the summi viri in the Forum of Augustus, as Suetonius stresses that Augustus restored the works of the men honoured. See also Bleckmann 2002: 118; Sehlmeyer 1999: 118; Östenberg 2009c: 58; Roller 2013. 82 Develin 1978: 430–1. 83 Thus e.g. Ehlers 1939: 497: ‘über die Art seiner Veranstaltung ist nichts bekannt’; Briscoe 1981 ad Livy 37.58.3; Künzl 1988: 101–2; Beard 2007: 63; Pittenger 2008: 293–394; Roller 2013: 120, n. 4. 84 Livy 37.30.7-9; MRR 1, 356, 362 with more evidence. 85 Livy 45.5-6; Plut., Aem. 26.2-4. 86 Duilius: see below; Paullus: Livy 42.20.1. 87 The term socii navales means crews, both citizen and allied. Normally the Roman fleets were manned by citizens (freedmen and proletarii) and allies; in the crisis of the Second Punic War slaves were also used. See Brunt 1971: 666–70. For the Third Macedonian War: Livy 42.27.3; 31.6-7; 43.12.9. Donatives to soldiers at triumphs are conveniently tabulated by Brunt 1971: 394. Livy (41.13.8) shows that Italian allies were in the procession as well as citizens. 88 The term triumphus navalis seems to suggest something close to a triumph, but the same can be said about the Alban Mount triumph (see above), which was something rather different altogether, certainly before the Late Republican period. 89 See Chapter 5.

Notes to p. 46

227

90 contra Dart and Vervaet 2011. Thus a comparison between the monuments of Duilius and Octavian is hampered by the fact that Octavian did not celebrate a naval triumph in 36 (or indeed in 29). Roller (2013: esp. 122) seems to downplay this difference rather too much. A study of similarities should not ignore differences. He also somewhat curiously ignores Actium. 91 The battle of Actium led to a ‘cult’ of naval rams, mostly in Rome. In front of the Temple of Divus Julius was the rostra aedis divi Iuli, with rams from the battle of Actium (Dio Cass. 51.19.2; 56.34.4; Frontin., Aq. 129.1). Octavian and rostral monuments: App., B Civ. 5.130; Serv., Georg. 3.29). At Actium itself Octavian chose to commemorate his victory with a victory monument, adorned with rams (Lange 2009: 95–123). After Naulochus Agrippa was rewarded with the corona navalis for his role. See also Prag 2006; Prag 2014. On rostra on Roman coins, see Clausetti 1932. 92 And there was the restoration of the Porticus Octavia, originally dedicated by Cn. Octavius in 167, in connection with his naval triumph (Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 556; Festus p.188 L; Livy, Per 140; Res Gestae 19; Vell. Pat. 2.1.2; Suet., Aug. 29.4; App., Illyr. 28; Dio Cass. 49.43.8. 93 According to Thiel (1954: 8), Antium was captured by land and the rostra were symbolic of Rome’s victory over a sea power. Contrary to this view, see Steinby 2007: 56, although without supporting evidence. 94 Livy 8.14.12; Flor. 1.5.10. 95 Roller 2009: 227. According to Servius Georg. 3.29 there were two rostral monuments; one ante circum a parta ianuarium and one on the Forum Romanum near the Rostra (cf. Plin., NH 34.20; Quint., Inst. 1.7.12). On columnae rostratae see Pietilä-Castrén 1987: 30; Sehlmeyer 1999: 117–21, 255–7. 96 The column/statue was probably decreed for Duilius, rather than erected on his own initiative; so explicitly the Forum Augustus elogium and Plin., NH 34.20; cf. De vir. ill. 38; Quint., Inst. 1.7.12. According to Florus (1.18.10) Duilius was unhappy to receive only one day of triumph and thus ordered these honours for himself. Cf. Amm. Marc. 36.3.5. Val. Max. 3.6.4 presents Duilius as one of a list of men who indulged themselves in dress or other style more freely than custom admitted. 97 Sil.Ital. 6.667-669; Cic., Sen. 44; Livy, Per. 17; Val.Max. 3.6.4; Flor. 1.18.10; Amm. Marc. 36.3.5; De vir. ill. 38; the Forum Augustum elogium. See Sehlmeyer 1999: 117–18; Roller 2009: 223. 98 Mommsen 1887.1: 423–4. 99 Elogium set up under Augustus in the gallery of summi viri in the Forum Augustum (CIL 6.8.3 31611 = 40952; ILS 55; see Geiger 2008: 144–5. 100 Florus 1.18.3 that Duilius was celebrating a daily triumph is just empty rhetoric typical of Florus. Roller 2009: 223 absurdly takes it seriously. Cf. Pietilä-Castrén

228

Notes to pp. 46–48

1987: 29: ‘There was great enthusiasm over the naval victory, demonstrated by the fact that the customary Roman triumph of one day seemed to last to the end of Duilius’ life’. 101 For Octavian’s use the formulaic terra marique together with pax, see Lange 2009: esp. 35, 121–3, 146–9. 102 App., B Civ. 5.130, Naulochus; Murray and Petsas 1989: 76 and 86, Nicopolis. 103 Dio Cass. 48.49; Suet., Aug. 16.1. 104 Duilius dedicated a shrine to the god in thanks for his naval victory at Mylae 260. According to Chioffi (CIL 6.40952 = Vol. 6.8.3 (2000): 4858), the temple may have been built from enemy booty. This rests on her supplement of line 7 of the fragmented inscription. This temple was restored by Augustus and completed by Tiberius (Tac., Ann. 2.49). Plin., NH 36.28 mentions that a statue of Janus Pater from Egypt was placed in the Temple of Janus by Augustus. This may have been the temple of Duilius. On Augustus and Janus, see Lange 2009: 140–8. On Duilius as an example for Augustus, see now Roller 2013: 120–6. He rightly points out that the temple stood on the triumphal route (121; cf. Pietilä-Castrén 1987: 33–4) and continues (122): ‘Yet the impressiveness of this claim [that Octavian had surpassed Duilius] depends upon Duilius being remembered as a glorious victor: for the better Duilius was, the better Octavian is in surpassing him’. 105 Ridley 2003: 58–9; Cooley 2009: 32. 106 Tac., Ann. 2.49; Ziolkowski 1992: 61–2; Coarelli 1996a: 90–1. According to Sil. Ital. 6.665–666, Duilius dedicated spoils to Mars. 107 See Beck 2005: 226–7. 108 Serv., Georg. 3.29 suggests that the columns of Octavian also were put up to honour Agrippa. See Dio Cass. 53.27.1. But Agrippa was commemorating his achievements as Octavian’s admiral. See Rich 1990: 163. On Agrippa‘s corona navalis, see Bergmann 2011. 109 See Hekster and Rich 2006: 154–155, with evidence. The denarius of C. Antistius Vetus from 16 (RIC 12 365–6), showing ‘A POLLO ACT’ (cf. Lange 2009: 177–80). Virgil Aeneas (book 8) and Propertius (4.6) are part of this development. 110 Agrippa was certainly important in at least Narbonese Gaul – see the Nemausus coinage featuring Augustus and Agrippa, with a crocodile [= Egypt] and a palm [Actium?] (RIC 12 154–61). 111 On Agrippa’s joint holding of the tribunician power, held for a fixed period, see Dio Cass. 54.12.4-5; 28.1; RG 6.2; Tac., Ann. 3.56. On the imperium of Agrippa, granted 23 and now renewed, see Dio Cass. 53.32.1; Rich 1990: 189; Ferrary 2009: 122–5. 112 Gell. 5.6.18; Festus, Gloss. Lat. 156–7 (Lindsay); Maxfield 1981: 74–6. 113 Vell. Pat. 2.81.3; Verg., Aen. 8.683-4; Dio Cass. 49.14.3; Livy, Per. 129; Sen., Ben. 3.32.4; Coin from Rome 12 with Agrippa wearing a mural and rostral crown

Notes to pp. 48–49

229

(corona muralis and navalis) (RIC 12 414). On the mural crown, see Maxfield 1981: 76–9. 114 Civic crown (Plin., NH 22.4.8; Gell. 5.6.11; RG 34.2); corona obsidionalis (Plin., NH 22.6.13; Dio Cass. 51.19.5). See Bergmann 2010: esp. 202–5, 217, who however most bizarrely downplays the connection between the corona civica and the civil war, instead focusing on the so-­called restoration of the Republic. RG 34.1, with the ending of the civil war and the coin legend OB CIVIS SERVATOS clearly shows this connection. Furthermore, the settlement of 28–27 should be related to the triumviral assignment (Lange 2009) and the ‘grave danger’ from which Octavian saves Rome (Fasti Fratrum Arvalium: Degrassi 1963: 489): feriae ex s(enatus) c(onsulto), [q(uod) e(o) d(ie) Imp(erator) Caesar Divi f(ilius) rem pu]blic(am) tristiss(imo) p[e]riculo [libera]vit. (‘Public Holiday by decree of the senate because on that day Imperator Caesar, son of the god, liberated the republic from the gravest danger’). 115 Vell. Pat. 2.81.3; Dio Cass. 49.14.3; Livy, Per. 129; Sen., Ben. 3.32.4. 116 Cf. Starr 1989: 72. Augustus in the end realized that a permanent fleet was a necessity, an idea he had the power to support, instead of raising naval forces for specific needs. As a result for two centuries the Roman navy was undisputed in the Mediterranean.

Chapter 3 1 See Rich 1998, who suggests that the arch preserved is the Arch of Actium. Later alterations meant that it could accommodate the standards to celebrate the Parthian Settlement (cf. Lange 2009: 163–6; contra Nedergaard 2001). For a rather different reconstruction see Freyberger 2009. He places the Actium arch south of the Temple of the Divine Iulius, as Rich 1998, and the Parthian Arch where the Arch of Septimius Severus stands today (Freyberger 2009: 68–70). He somewhat curiously claims that there is no evidence to suggest a triple arch to the south of the Temple of the Deified Caesar (contra Nedergaard 2001). He places all the fragments of the Fasti Triumphales to the north (Freyberger 2009: 64–7), again contra Nedergaard 2001: 109–11. To the north he claims there were two arches, the Arch of Gaius and Lucius and an arch for the consular and triumphal fasti (contra Spannagel 1999: 353, n. 633). Freyberger’s theories appear to be entirely unfounded. See Simpson 1993 for a claim that the Fasti Capitolini were not part of an Augustan arch, instead supporting the old idea of the Regia. 2 Degrassi 1947: 1–142, tables I-LIV for both Fasti Triumphales and Consulares (Nedergaard 2001 on the discovery and the subsequent discussions about the building to which they belonged (cf. Spannagel 1999: 238–52). On the Fasti Triumphales, see

230

Notes to pp. 49–50

now mainly Rich 2014, seeking to use the list of recorded triumphs to analyse the evolution of Roman triumphal practice, emphasizing changes in the frequency of triumphs overall, as well as discussing the problems of reconstructing the list of triumphs. Cf. Stiehl 1957; Bastien 2007: esp. 41–84; Itgenshorst 2004; 2005, see below; Beard 2007: esp. 61–7, 72–80, with the most recent discussions focusing mainly on the question of falsification. We should not entirely exclude the possibility of an earlier edition. If Spannagel’s idea is accepted (Spannagel 1999: 249), the Fasti Triumphales would originally have opened with the triple triumph of Romulus and ended with the triple triumph of Octavian in 29 (the Fasti Triumphales, in its preserved form, may thus be a new inscription, a second edition, so to speak). Perhaps as a means of legitimization, the entries of Romulus and Octavian have something in common, as suggested by Feeney 2007: 181: ‘After Romulus, there is not another son of a god on the list until the year 40 B.C.E., when the name appears of Imperator Caesar Divi filius’. The entry for Romulus reads: Romulus Martis f. rex (Degrassi 1947: 64–5; cf. Beard 2007: 302; see below). Romulus was of course famously the founder of Rome, as well as founder of bellum civile (Livy 1.7.1-3; cf. Strunk 2014: 138–9). 3 Degrassi 1947: XIV; Feeney 2007: 167, n. 1. 4 Rüpke 2011: 16–18: no fragments from a calendar are found. 5 See Feeney 2007: 174–5. 6 First ovation, not singled out as the first: Degrassi 1947: 64–5, 536, Postumius Tubertus 503. This was his second triumphal celebration against the same enemy; cf. Degrassi 1947: 64–5, 535–6 on 505. 7 primus pro co(n)s(ule) de Samnitibus: Degrassi 1947: 70–1, 541; Livy 8.26.7 suggests that he did not deserve a triumph and then continues to explain that he was the very first magistrate to have his command extended and that he triumphed after the end of his term. 8 Wallace-Hadrill 1993: 53 and illustration 17, p. 54; Spannagel 1999: 250; Itgenshorst 2004: 449; Beard 2007: 68–9, 350; Östenberg 2009a: 55; Rich 2013: 556 and n. 10. 9 As Spannagel 1999: 249. 10 Plin., HN 7.136; Dio Cass. 48.32.1-2; Vell. Pat. 2.51.3; Osgood 2014a. In the words of Momigliano (1940: 79): ‘Obviously, Augustus is different from Marius and Sulla, Pompeius and Caesar, not to say Antonius, just because he did not look for power in the provinces. He chose Italy in every moment of his struggle. The problem is to discover why, instead of Cornelius Balbus and Theophanes, his men were Agrippa and Livy – and Vergil’. 11 So e.g. Wallace-Hadrill 1993: 53; Itgenshorst 2004: 449; Beard 2007: 68–9, 350; Östenberg 2009a: 55. 12 Rich 2013: 556, n. 10. On the Forum of Augustus: Haselberger 2002: 130–1; Rich 1998. Vowed after Philippi, the forum and Temple to Mars Ultor were dedicated in 2 (Vell. Pat. 2.100.2; Dio Cass. 55.10.2-8).

Notes to pp. 50–51

231

13 Suet., Aug. 29.2; Dio Cass. 55.10.3. 14 Rich 2013: 556; contra Itgenshorst 2008 and Östenberg 2009a; Luke 2014: 248: he (Luke 2014: 85, n. 105) oddly suggests that Balbus’ triumph was the last triumph of the Republican era. This is a misrepresentation of the Augustan triumph. 15 Cf. Kleiner and Buxton 2008: 70, which also stresses peace and, as a result, the lack of any need for triumphs. They talk of a new kind of triumph (69) and suggest that ‘Viewing the processional friezes of the Ara Pacis as a disguised Augustan triumph is not a new idea’, but it is still unfounded. Balbuza (1999: 285), on the Fasti Triumphales: ‘Das Verzeichnis beginnt mit Romulus, dem Gründer Roms, und endet gar nicht mit L. Cornelius Balbus, sonders mit dem die Bogenattika beherrschenden triumphierenden Augustus. Das Monument sollte vor Augen führen, dass die Listen: der Konsule und Triumphatoren, vergangene Epochen darstellten. Augustus schloss die lange kette in der Geschichte der Republik ab, die jetzt ihren Gipfelpunkt erreicht, und triumphierend eine neue Zeit – die Friedensepoche einleitet’. This is a more attractive proposal altogether, but still ignores that there was no Parthian triumph (there was no ovation in 20 as mentioned in Dio Cassius), but mainly that the triumph did not end. War and peace go together and war certainly was not intended to end in 20. 16 Page 56, n. 9 and p. 70 suggest that this did not end war and Roman peace was always the result of military dominance. See also Rich 2003. 17 For a rather unfortunate misunderstanding of the interrelation between war and peace, see Bradley 2004: esp. 299–301: ‘To think therefore of the Principate as an era of peacefulness is to fall victim to notions propagated by the emperors themselves and to make a fundamental error of historical judgement’ (301). The fundamental error is to miss the point that peace could only be the product of victory and that the concept is connected to both internal and external wars. 18 Carm. 4.5.25-28; 4.14.41-52; 4.15.4-9; 4.15.21-24; cf. Florus 2.34.63-66, who misdates the closing of the Temple of Janus. 19 contra Östenberg 2009a: 69–70; cf. Rose 2005: 33: ‘The viewer was left with the sense that the Parthian Settlement represented the culmination of all earlier triumphs, and with the hope that the latest closing of the Gates of Janus, which lay within easy reach of the arch, would commemorate the advent of an enduring peace’. 20 Dio Cass. 53.26.5; Oros. 6.21.11. 21 Rich 2013: 545: ‘Janus was at first employed as a symbol of this pacification program: the shrine was closed for the second time in 25, following Augustus’s war in northern Spain (Dio Cass. 53.26.5). It may not have been reopened until his next departure for a war theatre, to Gaul in 16. Thereafter he may never have closed it again: Dio Cassius (54.36.2) records an abortive senatorial decree for its closure in 11, and in the Res Gestae Augustus says merely that the Senate decreed its closure three times, not that all these decrees were implemented’.

232

Notes to pp. 51–53

22 See Rich 2003; Lange 2009; Balbuza 1999: esp. 291. Östenberg (2009a: 70) states: ‘A few years later, Augustus’ policy of peace was taken even further. Once again, the emperor returned to Rome at night and had an altar built where he approached the city, this time explicitly dedicated to peace and in complete lack of any triumphal imagery, the Ara Pacis’. The Ara Pacis, however, is connected to Augustus’ return from Spain and Gaul, as a substitute honour replacing the triumph proper, and connected to his assignment, that is to say, the pacification of the Empire. This way the actual return to Rome shows he has fulfilled the assignment. This is about military victory and triumph-­like return. 23 McCormick 1986. The Arch of Actium-Parthia was not a monument of closed wars, celebrating peace (so Östenberg 2009a: 70), but a monument that celebrated Roman might and Roman victory, which ensured that peace could endure. 24 Östenberg 2009a: 60; 56: ‘the finishing date was deliberately chosen to signal the end of republican triumphs’; cf. Rose 2005: 33 (quotation above). In all fairness it should be pointed out that Östenberg never argues that Augustus celebrated a triumph in 20. 25 Rich 1998: 126, points to moderation for external exploits after 29, but it is unlikely that Augustus had much choice in this case. 26 As acknowledged by Östenberg 2009a: 61 and n. 39. 27 Cf. RG 3.2; Horace, Epist. 1.12.28, mentioning that Phraates accepted Augustus’ authority on ‘bended knee’. 28 The Fasti Triumphales is supported by Plin., HN 7.136; De vir ill. 32.1; Oakley 1997–2005: 2.757-60 esp. 759–60, on Livy 38.1-40.4, suggesting that the glamorous battle mentioned in Livy is an annalistic invention (Livy 8.38.2-39.15). 29 See Oakley 1997–2005: 2.757-72; 1.30-3. 30 According to Rich 2014: 203: ‘Modern sceptics hold that many of the triumphs in the list may have been inventions from such sources, but it is not easy to demonstrate this in individual cases’. Contrary to this view, distortion even after the First Punic War and later is suspected by Beard 2007: 80; cf. Clark 2014: 148–9. 31 Itgenshorst (2005: 219–21) suggest that Augustus sought to situate himself within the Republican tradition, and especially place his ovations of 40 and 36 within it because they were civil war victories. She claims that ovations were not part of Republican triumphal lists. But ovations are mentioned on the independent Fasti Barberiniani and were thus probably part of the Republican tradition. The Alban Mount triumph may not, however, have been part of the Republican triumphal tradition (see Lange 2014b; see below). According to Itgenshorst this was a list that appeared to show ‘Vollständigkeit’ and ‘Objektivität’ (Itgenshorst 2005: 11). Accordingly, it conveyed an image of consensus, which according to Itgenshorst did not reflect the Republican reality.

Notes to pp. 54–56

233

32 Polyb. 11.33.7: triumph celebrated; cf. App., Hisp. 38, versus Livy 28.38.4-5: no triumph; cf. Val. Max. 2.8.5; Dio Cass. 17, frag. 57, 56; Beard 2007: 78. There is unfortunately a lacuna in the Fasti Triumphales. 33 Livy 39.6-7: triumph celebrated, versus Flor. 1.27: no triumph; Beard 2007: 78–9. 34 On Florus and the use of Livy, see Bessone 1993: 80–117; see Chapter 1. Itgenshorst (2005) proposes to restrict her discussions on triumphs to contemporary evidence only. Her book reveals the impossibility of such an endeavour. Her approach is unsound, as we can hardly dismiss evidence in our attempt to reconstruct the past. Furthermore, later sources would have worked from contemporary evidence, at least implicitly, using evidence that derived from contemporary sources. 35 See Shackleton Bailey 1968: 249–50 for commentary. 36 Phillips 1974: 269. 37 Phillips 1974: 270; cf. Stiehl 1957: 26–7. 38 Feeney 2007: 167, n. 1; Stiehl 1957: 27–8. Unfortunately, we do not know where the Fasti Barberiniani was found. 39 De Saturnio Versu, in Keil, Gramm. Lat. 6, 265. 40 M. Frontonis epistularum ad Verum imperatorem Aurelium Caesarem liber II, section 14, written in 163 CE [118 VdH; 2.128 Haines]. 41 Beard 2007: esp. 203 for a sceptical view on such letters; see Chapter 4. 42 Diod. Sic. 40.4; Plin., HN 7.97-8, mentioning two inscriptions. Diodorus also proposes that the frontiers of the empire were extended, thus echoing triumphal conventions (Val. Max. 2.8.4). See Nicolet 1991: 32–3. 43 Verr. 2.1.21.57: in tabulas publicas ad aerarium (Servilius Vatia Isauricus); Livy 30.45.3; Östenberg 2009c: 87–9. A good example is 182: Terentius Varro (Degrassi 1947: 554; Livy 40.16.11, giving a precise list of the booty). 44 See Cadario 2014 on the gathering of art: it was assembled and catalogued before being shipped (some of it) back to Rome. The triumphator thus would have had to make a list of booty well before his triumph in Rome. After the triumph some of the artwork would go on display in Rome. Marcellus: Livy 25.40.1-3; Plut., Marc. 21. See McDonnell 2006a/b for more evidence. On the debate over Marcellus’ booty, see also Miles 2008: 60–73; Cadario 2005: 149–54. For a case against the significance of the display of spoils by Marcellus as a turning point (see also the alternative version, found in Florus 1.13.27-28, suggesting that Tarantine luxuries started it all (273 BCE)), see Gruen 1992: 84–130, esp. 98, supported by Rutledge 2012: 36–8; contra McDonnell 2006a, rightly stressing the scale and impact of Marcellus’ display. 45 Octavian according to Appian (B Civ. 5.130) even published a pamphlet summing up his speech to the Senate and the people in connection with his return to Rome, in ovation, no doubt given an account of his military victory over Sextus Pompeius.

234

Notes to pp. 57–58

46 CIL 6.1303; 1304; ILS 43: TRIVMPHAVIT TER. Inscription from his arch in the Forum Romanum; cf. L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus minted a coin in the late 60s, which continues this tradition (RRC 415). 47 Ridley 1983: 375; Oakley 1997–2005: 1.56, n. 139. Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 554, 556 for the years 181 and 167, which is clearly marked out as his second triumph. 48 See Beard 2007: 79 for a very different reading, focusing on invented triumphs. 49 A list of Middle Republican wars can be found in Rosenstein 2004: 110–11. He points out that Roman generals did not always have the time or take the trouble to count the corpses on the battlefield, particular in defeat. This may also have been the case if a triumph was at risk. This might then be a case of falsifying the triumphal records. He does however highlight the importance of knowing casualty figures (contra Brunt 1971: 694–7, who takes a sceptical view on the reliability of these figures). He rightly stresses that commanders in part worked from estimations. In civil war, where both sides may be compelled to give low figures this problem is greater. For casualties in the Roman civil wars, see Brunt 1971: esp. 696–7, for military administrative reasons as well as in the search for a triumph (esp. 112). See also Kagan 2006 on the commander’s view of the battle, as opposed to Keegan’s famous The Face of Battle (Keegan 1991). 50 See Koon 2010: 23; Briscoe 2013: 119 for the idea that Livy might have had military experience from the Perusine war. For a positive view of Livy and his battle accounts, see now Levene 2010: 261–316. On Cannae, see Daly 2002: esp. 201–2; cf. Tac., Hist. 2.70, on Vitellius visiting the battlefield. On commemorations of dead Roman soldiers, see Hope 2003; Cooley 2012. Hope’s suggestion that triumphs were about forgetting the dead rather than remembering them seems to overstate the case (Hope 2003: 84). Triumph was neither about forgetting nor remembering the dead Roman soldiers involved. 51 Interestingly, the focus in Roman times was mainly on the number of dead enemies, and only if too many (whatever that means) Roman soldiers were lost did this become an issue. Today the focus is very much centred around (our) own losses and less frequently focuses on enemy casualties. 52 See Thuc. 5.68 on the possibility of estimating numbers in battle. 53 On the annalistic tradition and its use of archival material, see Oakley 1997–2005: 1.21-108, 4.475-92; Rich (2011a) also discusses the extent to which annalists distorted archival evidence for the Middle Republic or supplemented it by invention. The archival material of the period will have included the Annales Maximi, but the record of senatorial decrees was probably the most important source. 54 Oakley 1997–2005: 1.56-7; 1.56 (from 389 authentic); Rich 2013: 551. In general on the Fasti Triumphales and the falsifications of the triumphal tradition, see now Bastien 2007: 41–118; Beard 2007: esp. 61–7, 72–80; Rich 2014: esp. 203–6 (the reconstructed Fasti Triumphales, 244–52). Bastien (2007: 79–80, 295) agrees that

Notes to pp. 58–59

235

although numerous falsifications can be found in the Fasti Triumphales for the later fourth and early third century, the catalogue is mostly sound thereafter, with the exception of the bloodless triumphs of 180, when the consuls were granted triumphs merely for deporting Ligurians (Livy 40.38 has no mention of military exploits). However, the naval triumph of Fabius Labeo in 188 is a precedent (Livy 37.60.6; 38.47.5-6). The question of falsifications is partly a reflection of our modern understandings of triumphal conventions. 55 Cic., Rep. 1.25. See now FRHist, Annales Maximi F5 (Vol. 2), with introduction Vol. 1, 141–59 and commentary, Vol. 3, 3–12, 6–7 on F5. See pp. 10–31 for more evidence. 56 FRHist, Vol. 1, 149 (JWR). 57 Cic., De Or. 2.52; FRHist, Annales Maximi GT1 = T3, Servius Aen. 1.372-3; FRHist, Annales Maximi T3, Gellius 2.28.6 = Cato 5 F80; FRHist, Annales Maximi, T1. 58 See FRHist, Vol. 1, 145–6 (JWR). 59 ita autem annales conficiebantur: tabulam dealbatam quotannis pontifex maximus habuit, in qua praescriptis consulum nominibus et aliorum magistratuum digna memoratu notare consueuerat domi militiaeque terra marique gesta per singulos dies (‘Annales were, however, compiled in the following way. Every year, the Pontifex Maximus had a whitewashed tablet, on which, with the names of the consuls and the other magistrates written first, he was accustomed to note the things worthy of mention which had been done at home and abroad, by land and sea, day by day’) [Trans: FRHist, Annales Maximi, T3]). 60 Cornell 1995: 15. 61 Frier 1999; Rich 2011a: 2–3; FRHist, Vol 1, 151–6 (JWR); contra Forsythe 1994: 53–73; Forsythe 2000; Petzold 1999: 252–259. 62 Dio Cass. 54.27.2; Frier 1999: 196. 63 Suet., Aug. 31; Tac., Ann. 6.12.2; Frier 1999: 196–200. The classic account on Roman antiquarianism is Momigliano 1990. See also Oakley 1997–2005: 1.33: ‘the practice of antiquarianism at Rome went back almost as far as that of historiography, and it flourished in the generation of Varro and Cicero’. At the conference Omnium annalium monumenta. Historical Evidence and Historical Writing in Republican Rome, organized by Christopher Smith and Kaj Sandberg in Rome in 2013 (BSR and The Finnish Institute), Duncan MacRae convincingly suggested that the modern separation of history and antiquarianism is an anachronism, invented by Renaissance scholars (Paper: Diligentissumus investigator antiquitatis? Rethinking ‘Antiquarianism’ and Historical Evidence in Republican Rome). There was neither a word nor a concept of antiquarianism in ancient Rome. Having said that, it still seems a useful term, separating the two: one synchronic, thus ignoring historical context, and one diachronic. But we need to define what we mean by the term. This is context dependent.

236

Notes to pp. 59–63

64 Feeney 2007: 168. 65 See Smith 2011. 66 contra Beard 2007: 302: ‘apart from a handful of the early kings with murky or mythical ancestry’. 67 One wonders: did Republican triumphal lists include pre-Republican times? As mentioned above the Fasti Triumphales begins with Romulus, the Consular Fasti with 509. 68 See however Pietilä-Castrén 1987: 116–17. 69 See also Pittenger 2008: 46; Chaplin 2000: 149–50. 70 Val. Max. 3.5.1b; 4.5.3; Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 556; Fasti Urbisalv., Degrassi 1947: 338–9; cf. Livy 9.46. See Brennan 1996: 328; Rosenberger 2009: 33; Beard 2007: 291; Pittenger 2008: 46–7; Lundgreen 2011: 248. 71 Cf. Lange 2014b. 72 Beard (2007: 66, and n. 48) stressed that as it is in Greek marble, it most likely does not predate the Fasti Triumphales and concludes that it is a direct copy, although there are clear differences. 73 CIL 1.55-59; Simón 2011; Smith 2012. 74 contra Beard 2007: 65–6; see also Taylor 1946, 1951, finding traces of political and antiquarian re-­handling. 75 Suet., Gramm. 17; on Verrius and antiquarian studies, see Glinister et al. 2007. 76 Spannagel 1999: 245–52; Flower 2006: 116–21; Lange 2009: 136–40, with further evidence and bibliography. 77 Ann. 3.18: multa ex ea sententia mitigata sunt a principe: ne nomen Pisonis fastis eximeretur, quando M. Antonii qui bellum patriae fecisset, Iulli Antonii qui domum Augusti violasset, manerent (‘Much in these suggestions was mitigated by the emperor. He would not have Piso’s name cancelled from the records, when the names of Marcus Antonius, who had levied war on his fatherland, and Iullus Antonius, who had dishonoured the hearth of Augustus, still remained’). 78 Degrassi 1947: 26–7: decemviri 451 BCE; Degrassi 1947: 36–9: dictator without consuls for the years 309 and 301. 79 Degrassi 1947: 170–1; cf. the Fasti Venusini (Degrassi 1947: 254–5. See also Chapter 6. 80 Feeney 2007: 180. He also suggests that ‘what we see on the consular fasti erected by Augustus are a number of subtle but profound realignments of how the viewer is meant to apprehend the lists’ (174). 81 Cic., De or. 2.195; Livy 28.9.16; Suet., Claud. 24.3; SHA, Sev. 14.7; Serv., Aen. 4.543. The ovation was not however obliged to enter through the Porta Triumphalis. See Lange 2015. 82 See Chapter 2. 83 Mommsen 1887.1: 134, n. 2: ‘Die Rechtsgültigkeit derselben bezeugen die Triumphhalfasten, die auch bei dem Zählen der Triumphe diese mit einrechnen’

Notes to pp. 63–64

237

(according to Mommsen 1887.1: 126–36 triumphal regulations were inconsistent). See also Wissowa 1912: 125; Versnel 1970: 165–6; Pietilä-Castrén 1987: 52–3; Künzl 1988: 32; Rüpke 1990: 227; Eder 2002: 837; Beck 2005: 315, n. 72; Wienand 2012: 17, n. 10, 399, n. 190. Brennan 1996 focuses on protest, esp. 315, 320, 324, but suggests that the acceptance of the Alban Mount triumph occurred after Maso (323), thus trying to explain the fact that it is mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales (323). On p. 328 he even suggests that the Senate might have curtailed the Alban Mount triumph after Cicereius’ celebration in 172. 84 Focusing mainly on the Alban Mount triumph as a lesser triumph: Bonfante Warren 1970: 50; Itgenshorst 2005: esp. 221; Beard 2007: 63 (suggesting a drastic response to refusal, but also proposing that ‘for some purposes they too could count as bona fide triumphs’, because they were mentioned on the inscribed list of triumphs); Pittenger 2008: 13 (‘smaller-­scale triumph’), 44, 295; Östenberg 2009c: esp. 48 (‘The ovatio and the triumph on the Alban Mount were both ranked below the triumphus proper’, having just stated that it was held on the commander’s own initiative; cf. 211: a protest); Rosenberger 2009: 37–8. Lundgreen 2011: 192, 248–9 (suggesting ovations were superior), and esp. 251 (not an alternative to the triumph). 85 Richardson (1975: 58) sums up the problem as follows: ‘This comparative impotence of the senate to stop a determined man from triumphing is emphasized by the absence from the sources and, more important still, from the surviving Fasti Triumphales of any indication that such celebrations were illegal, or indeed in any way unusual; the same can be said for the triumphs in monte Albano, for although records of only three out of the four known cases survive in the fragments of the Fasti, these are reported as taking place on the Alban mount but they are otherwise entered as though they were legitimate celebrations’. The ancient evidence, however, does not support this conclusion, but rather suggest a protest. See below. 86 See Beard et al. 1998/1: esp. 167–81 on ‘religion of place’. Rosenberger 2009: 29: ‘In Analogie zum Opfer, das der Triumphator in Rom im Iuppitertempel auf dem Capitol darbrachte, wird wohl auch der Triumphator auf dem Albaner Berg im dortigen Iuppitertempel geopfert haben’. There is a great difference between an analogy, or imitating an existing practice, and the two gods being one and the same. 87 Smith (2012: 277) rightly points out that returning to the Alban Mount instead of the Capitoline was to return to another point of departure for the army and its commander. 88 Brennan 1996: 321–2, dismissing the old theory of Niebuhr 1830: 41–2, contra Alföldi 1963: 391–2; Richardson 1975: 55; Simón 2011: 118, 128. On the Feriae Latinae, see now Pina Polo 2011b: esp. 30–5; Simón 2011; Smith 2012. There are very few archaeological remains (Simón 2011: 123. See Hülsen 1893: 1310–11. On topography and logistical problems, see Lugli 1923; Rosenberger 2009: 36). 89 Dion. Hal. 4.49; 6.95; Plut., Cam. 42.5; Strabo 5.3.2.

238

Notes to pp. 64–66

90 Dion. Hal. 8.87.6; Livy 22.1.6. 91 Cf. 38.44.8; 42.35.3; 43.15.3; 44.22.16. 92 The consul Flaminius’ departure from Rome in 218 ‘as a private citizen’, and without presiding over the festival at the Alban Mount before leaving for his assignment, was a serious breach of the pax deorum (Livy 21.63.5-9; 22.1.4-7). Similarly, the Fasti Latini includes apologies for the absences of Augustus from the festival during the 20s (Degrassi 1947: 150–1; Smith 2012: 274). A similar case is that of Hirtius and Pansa in 43 (Dio Cass. 46.33.4). An annual sacrifice at Lavinium was also presided over by the consuls according to Servius (Aen. 2.296) and Macrobius (3.4.11). This however is not mentioned by Livy and he does clearly mention the Feriae Latinae as the final event before the departure of the consuls. The consuls probably did not attend the ceremony at Livinium (Pina Polo 2011a: esp. 107–8). The process of travelling from Rome to the Alban Mount to Lavinium, and then to the provinces, seems to exclude such a possibility altogether. contra Alföldi 1963: 32; Simón 2011: 117–18. 93 Brennan 1996: 322; Simón 2011. 94 Künzl 1988: 32; Brennan 1996: 320; Pittenger 2008: 44, n. 41; Rosenberger 2009: 29, 34–6. 95 The same can be said about the triumphs down to the Second Punic War (Richardson 1975: 51). Triumphs and ovations were granted to consuls. There is a change after the end of the Second Punic War regarding the status of the triumphator (Richardson 1975: 52). 96 On the ovation of Caesar and the question of whether Caesar was attempting to establish himself as a king, see Weinstock 1971: 318–41; contra Luke 2012. According to Sumi 2005: 68, Caesar was celebrating victory in a general sense – an ideal, or the idea of, victory. 97 Dio Cass. 44.4.3; Suet., Caes. 79; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567. 98 Lange 2015. 99 Ex for places: Phillips 1974: 270. 100 Smith 2012: 275–7, 277: ‘However, the triumph is not, it seems to me, the way to understand Caesar’s ovation’ and connected instead to the prior agreement to allow Caesar the triumphal garb (276). The answer must be that this is also triumphal. 101 Ex Hisp. on the Fasti Triumphales, although there were no Spanish victories. Importantly, a commander could not expect to triumph after a victory in an exclusively civil war, only for a civil war that could also be represented as a foreign war. This was the easy way out. Lepidus’ triumph: Degrassi 1947: 86–87, 567; Fasti Barb., see Degrassi 1947: 342–343; Cic., Phil. 13.7–9; Vell. Pat. 2.67.4; App., B Civ. 4.31. 102 Dio Cass. 42.20.5; cf. 37.12.1-2 on Pompeius in 63. According to Wallace-Hadrill (1990) Pompeius could not, had he wanted, have prevented these honours. This was about flattery versus good will. The turning point came in 44, where after

Notes to pp. 66–69

239

excessive honours were resented. This is as it may be, but a gradual development nonetheless. Later the Senate, according to Dio Cassius (68.28), even granted Trajan permission to celebrate as many triumphs as he wished, in connection with his eastern campaign 116–117 CE. 103 Livy 26.21.6; Plut., Marc. 22.1; De vir Ill. 45.6; Val. Max. 2.8.5. 104 Caes., B Civ. 3.2.1; Luc. 5.400-2; cf. Dio Cass. 55.2.5 on Drusus. 105 Rich 1999: 552. 106 The importance of the Feriae Latinae during the Augustan period is also shown by the contemporary Fasti Latini of the magistrates who had celebrated the festival (Degrassi 1947: 143–58; 150–1, 156–7 on Augustus 27–23 BCE, cf. Dio Cass. 53.32.3: he resigned his consulship on the Alban Mount). 107 Itgenshorst 2005: esp. 219–21; cf. Ridley 2003: 97–8; Cooley 2009: 120–1. 108 Feeney 2007: 167, n. 1. 109 Contra Itgenshorst 2005: 219–23; Rosenberger 2009: 36–7. Some victors are even emphasized (see also above): Publilius Philo is mentioned as the first proconsul to be granted a triumph (326 BCE: Degrassi 1947: 70–1, 541), Claudius Marcellus’ spolia opima is mentioned (222: Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 550), the first naval triumph (Degrassi 76–7: 548: Duilius 260) and first Alban Mount triumph (Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 549: Papirius Maso 231) are mentioned as such, Cornelius Blasio’s command in 196 is mentioned as extra o]rdinem (Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 552; Livy 33.27.1: Supported by the Senate), and Octavian is Imperator Caesar Divi f. (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568; see above). 110 As mentioned in Chapter 2, Augustus interestingly refers to curulis triumphos and ovans triumphavi in the Res Gestae, at the same time suggesting they were different, but also both triumphs, although the ovation in principle is of lesser note (RG 4.1). The term curulis thus distinguishes his triple triumph from his two ovations, suggesting that the chariot was important. 111 Dio Cass. 44.4.3; Suet., Caes. 79; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567. 112 Dion. Hal. 4.49.2; Macrob., Sat. 1.16.16-17. 113 Livy informs us that the Albans and Romans were sharing similar institutions and ancestry: in 1.24-26 the famous battle between Horatii and the Curiatii is mentioned as something that resembles civil war (1.23.1): haec nuntiant domum Albani. et bellum utrimque summa ope parabatur, civili simillimum bello, prope inter parentes natosque, Troianam utramque prolem, . . . (‘With this answer the Albans returned to their city, and both sides prepared for war with the greatest energy – a civil war, to all intents and purposes, almost as if fathers were arrayed against sons; for both were of Trojan ancestry, . . .’). See also Luke (2012: 276 = 2014: 130): ‘His ovatio was thus intended to underline Caesar’s pre-­eminence but in a peaceful, concordant and religious context’. Independently we have reached similar conclusions (= Lange 2014b: 79).

240

Notes to pp. 71–72

Chapter 4 1 See also Gruen 1992: esp. 85. 2 Hölkeskamp offers a one-­sided and exaggerated picture of elite domination by collapsing distinctions between the Middle and the Late Republic (Hölkeskamp 2003: 221–6; 2004: 151–8 for competition in the Middle Republic). There was a system of consensus during the Middle Republic, but this became increasingly unstable in the Late Republic (Morstein-Marx 2004: 32, n. 115 offers a valid critique of Hölkeskamp). Nevertheless, with the First Punic War a group of powerful military commanders arose. 3 For a similar approach, see Potter 2011, identifying precursors to the imperial court in the Roman aristocratic households of the Late Republic. 4 On the view that there was a distinct continuation from the triumvirate to the Principate, see Lange 2009; Rich 2010; Rich 2012a. The classic treatment is Syme 1939 (esp. 3, n. 2). 5 For an overview of aristocratic ideology in the Middle and Late Republic, see Rosenstein 2007; Rosenstein 2010; Hölkeskamp 2010. 6 For a description of this development, see now Wienand 2012: esp. 14–17. 7 Cornelius Balbus in 19 proved to be the last commander from outside the imperial family to triumph, but there was no deliberated policy on the matter. Due to chronology this development is not easily connected to the decline of triumphs: Augustus declined triumphs in 25 (Flor. 2.33.53; Dio Cass. 53.26.5), in 20 (Dio Cass. 54.8.3 is wrong, as becomes evident in RG 4.1 and the Fasti Triumphales), Agrippa in 19 and 14 (Dio Cass. 54.11.6; 54.24.7). Dio Cassius (55.24.7-8, events in 14) is clearly wrong to suggest that people like Agrippa did not triumph after Augustus declined to triumph. See Chapter 3. 8 Steel (2013: 242) points out that there are few consular triumphs after 70. 9 Vervaet 2012; Vervaet 2014c. 10 Plut., Pomp. 25.3; Dio Cass. 36.37. 11 So Pompeius and Caesar. See Vervaet 2014c; Salomonsson 2000/2001. 12 Beard 2007: 298; Rich 2013: 555–6. Rich (2014: 238) gives figures: fourteen adherents of Octavian or Antonius received triumphs in 43–33 and after his victory over Antonius, Octavian/Augustus permitted a further six commanders to triumph in 28–26. 13 BHisp. 2.2; Dio Cass. 43.31.1; 42.1; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567. According to Lundgreen (2011: 210–11, 252) an independent imperium and a magistracy was always (‘Während nur wenige Kriterien (wie Amt und impeium) als feste Regel vorliegen mussten’) part of the granting of a triumph. Whether we consider these cases to be exceptions or irregularities, they did occur, and only if the last period of the Late Republic is omitted does the problem disappear. In this particular case it was later

Notes to pp. 72–74

241

regularized in the Fasti Triumphales, where Pedius is called ‘proconsul’ (by the time of the triumph Fabius was consul), so as to suggest that they had indeed held an independent imperium. Civil war period or not, there was still a marked need to justify within the traditional conventions of the Roman past. In 36 Domitius Calvinus triumphed ex Hispania (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569; Fasti Barb. (Degrassi 1947: 342–3), even though the province was under the command of Octavian (Dio Cass. 48.42.4). Lundgreen seems to overlook the last years of the Late Republic in order to argue that the question of triumphal rules/conventions can be considered within the larger contexts of Roman political rules and rule conflicts. He has a section on Sonderfälle (Lundgreen 2011: 232–6) and one on triumphs against the rules (Lundgreen 2011: 236–44), but in my view this misrepresents the discussion, as many triumphs mentioned in our evidence are mentioned because they are spectacular (and thus different) or indeed a Sonderfall, where something about it was unusual enough to be interesting, be it the fighting, the granting of triumph or the procession. See also Chapter 2. 14 Lange 2013; see Chapter 5. 15 For the traditional procedure of requesting a triumph, see Dion. Hal. 3.22.3; Livy 3.63.5-11. 16 For triumphal regulations see Auliard 2001; Itgenshorst 2005: esp. 180–8; Beard 2007: esp. 187–218; Pittenger 2008; Goldbeck and Mittag 2008; Lundgreen 2011: 178–253; Lange and Vervaet 2014. For a critique of Livy, see Beard 2007: esp. 208–9; Itgenshorst 2005: 176. This of course mainly relies on the rather strange conclusion that the contemporary peers of Livy did not know how to qualify for a triumph (rightly so Vervaet 2008). 17 On politics and the granting of triumphs, see Richardson 1975; Develin 1978; Beard 2007: 199–214; Pittenger 2008. 18 Val. Max. 7.5 on electoral defeats. For the speech of Marius, see Evans 1994: 71–3; Flower 1996: 16–23; McDonnell 2006b: esp. 273. On Marius and virtus, see 2006b: 265–80. Marius used his martial reputation to challenge Senatorial consensus (2006b: 265), and dedicated a temple to Honos and Virtus, as did earlier Romans associated with Virtus such as Claudius Marcellus. Marcellus’ temple was dedicated in 205 by his son. See McDonnell 2006b: esp. 206–40. Marcellus also challenged Senatorial consensus with his Alban Mount triumph (see Chapter 2; cf. Lange 2014b: 70–2). On virtus as a (military) specialization, see McDonnell 2011. 19 Flower 1996: 22. 20 McCormick 1986 on ‘triumphal rulership’; Luke 2014: 39 on Marius stresses ‘. . . his strategic use of triumph as a tool for amplifying his charisma’. 21 Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 561 (Fasti Consulares). 22 For a similar conclusion, see Vervaet 2014c: 173–4. Sall., Iug. 84.1: Marius as one of the populares. See Lintott 1996: 90, 86–103 on the career of Marius. Lintott rightly

242

Notes to pp. 74–77

sees Marius’ command as a forerunner of a series of major commands carried by the people to Caesar, Pompeius and Crassus. The precedent may have been Scipio Aemilianus’ command in Africa in 147 (91). On Metellus Numidicus and Marius, see McDonnell 2006b: esp. 271. See also van der Blom forthcoming. 23 For the triumph of Marius in 104, see Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 561–2. 24 Sall., Jug. 86.2; Plut., Mar. 9.1; Rich 1983; Rosenstein 2004. Rich shows that that there was no manpower shortage, Rosenstein that the Senate thought there was. Summing up the debate, see Ligt 2007. 25 For a brief summation of this development, see Cagnniart 2007. 26 See now Morstein-Marx 2007; Morstein-Marx 2009. He points out that the right to pursue the consulship in absentia was conferred in the Law of the Ten Tribunes of 52. 27 Sall., Iug. 114.3; Livy, Per. 67: Marius triumphali veste in senatum venit quod nemo ante eum fecerat; Plut., Mar. 12.5; Dio Cass. 48.4.5. 28 Evans (1994: 81, n. 89. See also Beard 2007: 228, 273) suggests that Plutarch’s story is apocryphal, but his view that an experienced politician like Marius would not make such a mistake seems unconvincing. 29 CIL 6.8.3 40957 = 31598; cf. Geiger 2008: 154–5. Evans 1994: 81, n. 89 suggests that Livy is talking about an honour. 30 See Pina Polo 2011b: 17–18. 31 See Rosenberger 1992: 30–1. 32 The period in question also saw fighting against the pirates (M. Antonius’ triumph 102 BCE: Degrassi 1947: 561–2) and in Sicily (slave war, ovation of M. Aquillius 99: Degrassi 1947: 562; Rosenberger 1992: 163). 33 See Degrassi 1947: 562 for Catulus’ triumph; Vervaet 2014c: 71–8, 161–2. 34 Cic., Prov. Cons. 26–27; Cic., Rab. Perd. 27: title paper patriae; Sest. 387: saviour of the country; Leg Man. 60: hopes of the Empire should be reposed to Marius alone; Val. Max. 8.15.7; Plut., Mar. 27.5. 35 Plut., Mar. 27.5; Val. Max. 8.15.7. 36 Dio Cass. 51.19.7; cf. Hor., Carm. 4.5.31-36; Petron., Sat. 60; Lange 2009: 129. 37 Sall., Iug. 63.2-3; Plut., Mar. 3.2-4.1; Val. Max. 6.9.14. Cicero does mention him in his list of great men: Pis. 58; Cat. 4.21. 38 Hölkeskamp 2010: 28–9, n. 11; cf. Hölkeskamp 2011: esp. 9, where he advocates that the Middle Republic should not be viewed as a period of stability, but one in which the political competition was a defining part of its culture. See also above. 39 Cf. Evans 1994: 79. 40 Evans 1994: 78. 41 See Goldbeck and Mittag 2008: 62–3. The cited instance of Fulvius Flaccus is otherwise unattested. 42 So Itgenshorst 2005: Gesamtkatalog Nr. 234; Lundgreen 2011: 196, 244–6. 43 CIL 6.8.3 40957 = 31598; see Degrassi 1947: 562 for more evidence. 44 Dio Cass. 37.20.5-6; see Vervaet 2014b.

Notes to pp. 77–78

243

45 Vervaet 2014b: 140. Dio Cassius 37.21.1 does point to a breach of custom. As recorded in Vell. Pat. 2.40.4; Dio Cass. 37.21.3-4; Cic., Att. 1.18.6 the tribunes of the plebs T. Ampius and T. Labienus passed a law that at all circus games Pompeius should be permitted to wear a corona aurea and the vestis triumphalis, and at the theatre the toga praetexta (picta) and the corona aurea. 46 Dio Cass. 42.20.5; 43.14.3. Celebrated in 46: Degrassi 1947: 566–7, the Fasti Triumphales entry is lost. Dio Cass. 42.20 is a critique of civil war triumphs, not triumphs given in absentia (cf. 51.19.1, 5 on Actium and Alexandria). Dio Cassius may be trusted on the decrees of the Senate (Lange 2009: 125–57). An alternative version might include the imperatorial acclamation attested for Scribonius Curio (Caes., B Civ. 2.26.1, 32.14), which would then be the basis for attributing the African triumph to Caesar. As already mentioned there is a distinct development during this period in which legati receive triumphs. The case of the granting of triumphs ex Hispania to Caesar’s legates, Fabius Maximus and Pedius, who had no independent imperium, is part of this development. This may also explain the semantic confusion regarding Curio’s status (legate or governor? See Westall forthcoming a: Chapter 5 on this issue, suggesting irregularity and confusion), similar to the entries of Maximus and Pedius on the inscribed fasti. However, they celebrated their own triumphs. Similarly, Augustus later did not celebrate other commanders’ triumphs. I think it more likely that Curio received acclamation as imperator, but no subsequent triumph. This is a case about trusting (or not) Dio Cassius on the issue of the decisions and implementations of the Senate. Dio Cass. 42.20.1-5 is quite clear about the decision of 48, which does not include Curio. 47 See Weinstock 1971: 68–71 on the white horses. 48 See Chapter 5. Livy, Per. 116; Vell. Pat. 2.56; Suet., Iul. 37; Plin., HN 14.97; Quint., Inst. 6.3.61; Plut., Caes. 56.7; Dio Cass. 43.42.1-3; Flor. 2.13.88; Sumi 2005: 63–4. 49 See Lange 2013: 75–8. The triple triumph of Octavian 29 was the first to be celebrated on three consecutive days; Caesar’s first four triumphs had been within one month, but with intervening days (Suet., Iul. 37.1). The Res Gestae (4.1), Suetonius (Aug. 22) and all other sources distinctly mention three triumphs and not a multi-­day triumph, as celebrated earlier: Quinctius Flamininus (Livy 34.52.3-4; Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 553) and Aemilius Paullus (Livy 45.40; Plut., Aem. 32–34; Diod. Sic. 31.8.9-13; Degrassi 1947: 80–1, 556) both celebrated three day-­triumphs, Pompeius two days (Plin., HN 7.26.98-99; App., Mith. 116–117; Plut., Pomp. 45; Dio Cass. 37.21; Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566). Itgenshorst 2005: Gesamtkatalog 368, rightly points out that the repeated crossings of the pomerium within such a short period, as the case was with the triumphs of Caesar in 46, rendered the ritual an absurdity. Similarly, it is probable that Octavian, somewhat bizarrely, processed through the city on each day in 29 (see Chapter 7). 50 See also Chapter 3, for the 44 ovans ex monte Albano.

244

Notes to pp. 79–81

51 Itgenshorst 2005: Gesamtkatalog 384 is wrong to suggest that the Lepidus incident was a novelty. 52 Cic., Ad Brut. 1.3.4, 5.1; Livy, Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4; Dio Cass. 46.40.1. 53 Dio Cass. 51.19.1, 5; on the honours presented to Octavian after Actium and Alexandria, see Lange 2009: 125–57. 54 Dio Cass. 51.25.2; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 571. 55 Sumi (2005: 189) suggests that it is not entirely clear how they were awarded, but this is not so. They were given as an honour in absentia, without the victor requesting it, as a medium for negotiating status and prestige within a highly competitive elite society. 56 On triumphal ambition, see Beard 2007: 190–9. A classic example is Cicero, trying to get a triumph, although at the same time denying it (Att. 6.3.3; 9.7.5). See Gotter 1996: 120 for more evidence. See also Eckstein 2008: 18 about restraint of senatorial ambition during the Middle Republic. The Senate was no rubber stamp for those who wanted triumphs (cf. Rich 1993). This of course changed during the Late Republic. 57 Livy 31.47.7; Mommsen 1887.1: 134. 58 See Chapter 2. 59 Vell. Pat. 2.82.3-4; Plut., Ant. 50.6; cf. Pelling 1988: 241, dismissing this as a triumph, and instead suggesting a Dionysiac procession. 60 For the discussion of whether this was one of two distinct tropaia, see Spannagel 2003. The tropaia was also part of the political polemic with Catulus, who also put up a monument. 61 Plut., Caes. 6; Vell. Pat. 2.43.4; Suet., Iul. 11.2; Val. Max. 6.9.14. 62 Mar. 32; Sull. 6.2; perhaps shown on coin, see RRC 359; cf. RRC 426/1 (Faustus Sulla, 56 BCE); Santangelo 2007: 2, 204–7; See also Schmuhl 2008: 117–19. For the rivalry between Marius and Sulla, linked to monuments in Rome, see now SteinHölkeskamp 2013. 63 See Santangelo 2007: 206. 64 CIL 12 25 = 6.1300; Plin., HN 34.20; Sil. Ital. 6.663-6; Quint., Inst. 1.7.12; Serv., Georg. 3.29. Kondratieff 2004: 2, n. 4 with bibliography. 65 Kondratieff 2004: 11–14 connects this to Suet., Aug. 31.5 and the summi viri in the Forum of Augustus, as Suetonius stresses that Augustus restored the works of the men honoured. 66 App., Mithr. 93; Claud., in Eutrop. 1,217; See Degrassi 1947: 564 for more evidence. 67 On Mithridates and Rome, see now Madsen 2009; Madsen 2014. 68 See App., Mith. 9.65. Keaveney 2005: 161; contra Mastrocinque 1999: 97–9. Itgenshorst 2005: Gesamtkatalog 333 suggests that Murena might have triumphed ex Asia, which is supported by Gran. Licin. 36.5. The Fasti Triumphales entry is fragmented. In fact, in none of the Mithridates entries has the enemy name survived. 69 As attested not only by Cicero’s use of the title for him (Leg. Man. 8; Mur. 11), but also on IG 5.1.1454 and an inscription mentioned by Reynolds (1976: 178).

Notes to pp. 81–84

245

70 Degrassi 1947: 565; Cic., Mur. 33, 37; 69; Acad. 2.3. He was actively helped by Cic., Luc. 3. 71 Plut., Pomp. 30: Pompeius took over the war as well as the triumph. In 46 Caesar triumphed over Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates (Degrassi 1947: 567). 72 Cic., Leg. Man. 30; Plut., Crass. 11.11; Pomp. 21.4, referring to the laurelled letter to the Senate, sent by Pompeius, suggesting that he ended the war. 73 Cf. Livy 26.21.2-4; Rüpke 1990: esp. 225–8; Westall 2014. 74 On the context of Caesar’s quotation, see now Östenberg (2013), rightly emphasizing its triumphal context. 75 As Östenberg 2013: 818–21, p. 825 on the laurelled letter. 76 Even if a triumph was granted as an honour before the return to Rome, this letter will have been the basis of any claim to victory. See Dio Cass. 55.24.7, claiming that after Agrippa declined a triumph in 14 no letters were sent to the Senate. This may be wrong, as it is connected to a misunderstanding. Triumphs continued. Importantly, it implies that it was normal to send a laurelled letter to Rome after a victory. 77 Cf. Vervaet 2014b. 78 For the date between 82 and 79, see Beard 2007: 16 and n. 28 with evidence. 79 Plut., Pomp. 14. On the lack of status of Pompeius: Plut., Sert. 18.2; Cic., Leg. Man. 61; Plin., HN 7.95; Val. Max. 8.15.8. See Beard 2007: 14–18; Lundgreen 2011: 233–6 on the controversies of this triumph. 80 Cic., Leg. Man. 62; App., B Civ. 1.121; 3.88. 81 Cf. 34.2; Livy, Per. 99: queritur Q. Metellus gloriam sibi rerum a se gestarum a Pompeio praeverti (‘Q. Metellus complains that the glory of his achievement has been stolen by Pompeius’); App., Sic. 6; Flor. 2.13.9; Dio Cass. 36.17a). 82 Lange 2013; see Chapter 5. 83 See also Chapter 1. Gotter 1996: 233–66, claiming it is part of Republican history. 84 Flower 2006: 90–8. On the hostis declaration, see Nippel 1995: esp. 66–7. 85 Livy, Per. 77; Val. Max. 3.1.2b; Vell. Pat. 2.19.1; Sen., Prov. 3.7; Clem. 1.12.1; Luc. 2.160; Plut., Cat. Min. 3.2-4; App., B Civ. 1.71; Mithr. 51. See Flower 2006: 92. 86 Cic., Leg. 2.56; Val. Max. 9.2.1; Luc. 1.583-584. 87 See also Chapter 5. As described by Syme 1939: 123–34; 176–86: the first and second march on Rome. See Ungern-Sternberg 1998: 612–14 on Sulla and legitimization. For imperial examples, see Hekster 2007. 88 Lepidus in Spain: Vell. Pat. 2.63.1; App., B Civ. 2.107; 3.46; Dio Cass. 43.51.8; 45.10.6. For Sextus Pompeius’ restoration and subsequent proscription, see Manuwald 2007: 683–95, esp. 686 (Phil. 5.39-40); Welch 2012: esp. 134–6. 89 Cic., Phil. 3.20-24, 28 November; 5.38-41; Cic., Fam. 10.34-35. 90 Phil. 5.19; cf. Dio Cass. 45.10.6; Manuwald 2007: 409. 91 14.22-4; 22: numquam enim in civili bello supplicatio decreta est (‘for no public thanksgiving has ever been voted in a civil war’).

246

Notes to pp. 84–88

92 Cic., Cat. 3.15; Pis. 6; Phil. 2.13. 93 Sumi 2005: 189–91. 94 Lepidus’ triumph: Degrassi, 1947: 86–7, 567; Fasti Barb., see Degrassi 1947: 342–3; Cic., Phil. 13.7-9; Vell. Pat. 2.67.4; App., B Civ. 4.31. When Lepidus later joined Antonius the Senate rescinded his honour and he was declared a hostis: Cic., Fam. 12.10.1; Ad Brut. 1.12.1-2; 15.9; Vell. Pat. 2.64.4; App., B Civ. 3.96; Dio Cass. 46.51.4. Sehlmeyer 1999: 247–9; Gotter 1996: 139–40 both stress a triumph for avoiding civil war. 95 Livy, Per. 116; Vell. Pat. 2.56; Suet., Iul. 37; Plin., HN 14.97; Quint., Inst. 6.3.61; Plut., Caes. 56.7; Dio Cass. 43.42.1; Flor. 2.13.88. 96 Lange 2013; and Chapter 5. 97 B Civ. 1.9.5; cf. 1.8.3; 1.9.3; B Gall. 6.1.2. 98 Rich 2011b: 204–9. 99 Lange 2009: 60–93; 2013. 100 See also Osgood 2006: 191; Beard 2007: 267. 101 Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567. 102 The situation here was of course very different from that of Octavian making peace with Antonius that one could hardly imagine the possibility. Antonius and Octavian were both legitimate triumvirs, whereas Sextus Pompeius had long been treated as a hostis by Caesar’s regime. 103 Plancus: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567; Fasti Barb., see Degrassi 1947: 342–3. 104 Cf. Quint. 8.3.29; Woodman 1983: 155. 105 Welch 2012: 135 on the date of the supplicatio. 106 Vell. Pat. 2.62.5; Dio Cass. 46.41.2. 107 Suet., Aug. 26.1; App., B Civ. 3.88; Dio Cass. 46.41-43. 108 On the context, see Lange 2009: 14–18. See Pina Polo 2006 for tyranny and tyrannicide. RG 1.3: Octavian was given imperium and as propraetor he was ordered to make sure Rome would come to no harm. For a description of the period surrounding Mutina, see Gotter 1996: 173–94. 109 Cic., Phil. 14.36-38; 14.11; 14.29; Dio Cass. 46.38.1-2; Cic. Fam. 11.18.3; App., B Civ. 3.74; Dio Cass. 46.39.3: suggesting sixty days as the only source. See also Gotter 1996: 136–7. Marius received five days of thanksgiving after the victory over the Teutones and the Cimbri. Originally it had been one day (Wissowa 1931; Weinstock 1971: 62–4 on thanksgivings during the Late Republic). Pompeius received ten days, which according to Cicero was the first time this occurred (Prov. Cos. 26–7). The motion was proposed by Cicero himself. Caesar received forty days after his victory in Africa, and Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian fifty days after Mutina. In the end Augustus surpassed them all. In the Res Gestae, having stated that he declined triumphs after 29, he mentions that he was hailed as imperator twenty-­one times. He then sums up his number of supplicationes (RG 4.2, including Mutina): 890 days.

Notes to pp. 88–92

247

110 See Gotter 1996: 92–146. 111 Manuwald 2007: 463–86. 112 See Manuwald 2007: 766–7. 113 Cic., Ad Brut. 1.3.4, 5.1; Livy, Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4; Dio Cass. 46.40.1. Golden 2013: esp. 199 sums up Mutina and mentions Cicero’s entry into Rome, but forgets the granted triumph to Decimus Brutus. This was a crisis in the Roman government. All sides in this conflict behaved against the famous mos maiorum. 114 Cic., Ad Brut. 19; Livy, Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.64.4; Dio Cass. 46.39.3. 115 Livy, Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4-5; App., B Civ. 3.74; Dio Cass. 46.40. 116 Cf. Suet., Aug., 22.1, closely resembling the words of Augustus, although he wrongly assigns an ovation to Philippi. 117 40: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568 (Fasti Triumphales); 342–3 (Fasti Barb.) and 36: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569 (Fasti Triumphales); 342–3 (Fasti Barb.). Gotter (1996: 137) wrongly suggests that we do not know if he accepted it. 118 Gotter 1996: 186, n. 92. 119 Cic., Phil. 5.34; 8.14; Rab. Perd. 20; Sall., Hist. 1.77.20; RG 1; cf. Lintott 1999a: 89–93. 120 See Lange 2012. 121 Livy, Per. 69; Vell. Pat. 2.12.6; App., B Civ. 1.32; Flor. 2.4.3-6. 122 Twice: the second instance refers to 88, when Marius fled to Africa (Livy, Per. 77; Plut., Mar. 41.2; App., B Civ. 1.62). 123 On the Forum Augustum, see Rich 1998; Spannagel 1999, on the elogia, see Spannagel 1999: 317–44; Geiger 2008. 124 For the chariot, see Rich 1998: 115–25; see Epilogue. 125 Moreover, Spannagel suggests that Marius’ elogium does not fit the bipartite pattern of the elogia of the other princeps vir (Spannagel 1999: 318–20), and as a consequence he believes it was erected elsewhere. 126 From a copy found in Pompeii: Degrassi 1937: 69–70; cf. Augusta Emerita: AE (1996): 864 a–b. 127 Forum Romanum: Degrassi 1937: 38–9; cf. Geiger 2008: 140–1. 128 Arretium: Spannagel 1999: 319; Degrassi 1937: 60–2; Geiger 2008: 145–6 suggests that the role as Cunctator may be important due to a similar strategy used by Augustus. This elogium is accepted by Spannagel (1999: 333–4) even though the information given is curious, and very different from the other elogia. 129 Östenberg 2009b sums up current scholarship: ‘The age of Augustus formed a true turning point in history that is reflected clearly in the celebration of the triumph’. Cf. Balbuza 1999; Itgenshorst 2005: esp. 9–12, 219–26; Beard 2007: 295–305. As regards the monopolization of the triumph after 19, this did of course change triumphal practices and did no doubt have implications for post-Augustan sources writing about earlier Republican triumphs. However, we should also accept that

248

Notes to pp. 92–95

the triumph was a ritual with a history, defined by conventions, dating to the Republican period. 130 See Chapter 3. 131 See Lendon 2009. 132 Lange 2015; see Chapter 7.

Chapter 5 1 Wolfgang Havener and I are in agreement that civil war was integrated into many Late Republican triumphs and reached the same conclusion independently – that civil war should not be neglected when we look at triumph. A few comments related to his two articles (Havener 2014; 2015) will thus suffice for now. He considers triumphs as distinct processes: the granting of a triumph and the actual performance/spectacle. In the actual spectacle civil war was often present. Even though I agree in part, there is one problem: there is very little actual evidence that validates this idea with any certainty. At the same time I am unsure this separation is altogether helpful. Being granted a triumph was always a question of justification, be it on the battlefield, in the letter to the Senate, at the meeting in the Senate, at the spectacle, or in the process of remembering the victory (monuments etc.). The more this point is emphasized, or so I believe, the more obvious it becomes that most triumphs were given for something else or more than civil war. Nevertheless, we both emphasize that the Senate did not always reject civil war triumphs, as the example of Mutina shows. In this case the Senate granted a triumph after a civil war and thus there would not have been a separation of the two processes as proposed by Havener. We thus mainly defer in details and agree that triumph and civil war were not mutually incompatible during the Late Republic. Contrary to Wolfgang Havener’s view, and partly contrary to my view, Ida Östenberg (2014) claims that it is precisely because the triumph was such a deeply rooted Republican honour that civil war triumphs failed. The Senate struggled to find adequate and acceptable means to celebrate and commemorate civil war victories. Excepting Mutina, which was never actually celebrated, the performance itself proved an inadequate form to display conquered fellow Romans. I still however believe that she is underestimating the impact of civil war during the Late Republican period. 2 On definitions of civil war, see Armitage 2009; see also Chapter 1. For the huge disruptions caused by civil war, see Millar 1984; Osgood 2006. On Roman Republican civil war, see Henderson 1998; Breed et al. 2010. Unfortunately the volume Civil War in Ancient Greece and Rome appeared too late for me to take it into account, with the exception of the articles by Havener and Myrup Kristensen, who kindly supplied drafts of their contributions.

Notes to pp. 95–97

249

3 So Mommsen 1887.1: 133 and Ehlers 1939: 498, who, echoing Mommsen’s words on the matter, writes: ‘Auch bei einheimischen Aufständen und Bürgerkriegen war er nicht statthaft, eine Regel, die bis auf die Verfallszeit der Spätantike (s. u.) wenigstens formell stets beachtet wurde’. Cf. Lundgreen 2011: 223, although he also acknowledges that this was a problematic rule in the Late Republic; Bastien 2007: 228–9. Itgenshorst (2005: 219–26, esp. 224) notes that Octavian’s triple triumph of 29 was linked with civil war (cf. Dart and Vervaet 2011: 278–80). As mentioned already in Chapter 3, she suggests that Augustus sought to situate himself within the Republican tradition, and place his ovations and triumphs within this tradition, as they were problematic civil war victories (Itgenshorst 2005: 219–21; cf. Itgenshorst 2004: 445 and n. 31). However, as pointed out, ovations are also mentioned on the independent Fasti Barberiniani. In general, most modern work on the triumph either omits or is very brief on the subject of civil war (cf. Beard 2007; Östenberg 2009c). It is a common assumption to claim that the war at Actium was represented by the regime as a foreign war against Cleopatra, even though it was in reality a civil war, a ‘cover-­up’, so to speak. The classic account is Syme 1939: 270, 275); cf. Eder 1990: 100; Gurval 1995: esp. 28, cf. 15–16; Galinsky 1996: 82; DeBrohun 2007: 257; Schipporeit 2008: 96; Farrell and Nelis 2013: 3–4, and see Lange 2009: 79, n. 30 on the vast scholarship on the issue. Contrary to this view, Beard (2007: 303) suggests that Actium was exclusively a civil war and was even celebrated as such (see below, section on Actium). A similar view is found in Sumi (2005: 216). For Actium as both a foreign and a civil war, see Lange 2009: esp. 79–90. 4 Cf. Lange 2013. 5 Honours testified to the recipient’s public acclaim and defined the relationship between the commander and his peers and rivals in the Senate (Wallace-Hadrill 1990; Sumi 2005; Hölkeskamp 2010). 6 The classic treatments on triumphal conventions are Mommsen (1887.1) and Ehlers (1939). According to Mommsen (1887.1: esp. 134) triumphal regulations were inconsistent, but even if he ended up creating too rigid a juridical system, Mommsen’s Römisches Staatsrecht may be a theoretical more than an empirical work (Lintott 1999a: 8; Pina Polo 2011b: 2; cf. Winterling 2009: 123–40, cf. 12–13). For a criticism of Mommsen, see Beard 2007: 187–218. She is overly sceptical about the possibility of reconstructing customary practices, such as on ‘laurelled letters’ (Beard 2007: esp. 203). It must however be acknowledged that her book has served a useful purpose in challenging traditional assumptions. See also Chapter 2 on this issue. 7 On the ius triumphandi, see Lundgreen 2011: esp. 216–25; Lundgreen 2014. 8 Goldbeck and Mittag 2008: 62–3. The cited instance of Fulvius Flaccus is otherwise unattested, and, since commanders traditionally had to ask for triumphs, it is hard to see how rejecting a triumph would have arisen in Republican times. Augustus and Agrippa did of course regularly decline triumphs: Augustus in 25 BCE (Flor.

250

Notes to pp. 97–99

2.33.53; Dio Cass. 53.26.5), in 20 (Dio Cass. 54.8.3 is wrong), Agrippa in 19 and 14 (Dio Cass. 54.11.6; 54.24.7). 9 Val. Max. 2.8.7; cf. 7.6.6. According to Goldbeck and Mittag (2008: 61–2), Valerius Maximus implies criticism of Augustus, as both his ovations of 40 and 36 and his triple triumphs of 29 were granted in what were in part civil wars. On Valerius Maximus’ direct and indirect panegyric of the imperial house and Augustus at key structural points in his work, see Wardle 2000. 10 E.g. Itgenshorst 2005: 180–8; Beard 2007: esp. 209–11, calling Valerius Maximus ‘a Mommsen avant la lettre’ (Beard 2007: 209); Lundgreen 2011: 216–23. Lundgreen (2011: 223) concludes that civil war was a matter of definition. This does not however take into account the possibility that no one denied that these victories were partly civil. Denying a civil war altogether would have been foolish. 11 Bloomer 1992: 59–146; Wardle 1998: 15–18. 12 Bloomer 1992: 29–48. 13 For Varro as a possible source here, see Bloomer 1992: 117–19. Bloomer himself argues against Varro as a source for the chapter, but he shows only that Varro cannot have been the source for all the material (obviously, in view of the mistakes) and that we cannot prove that Varro was the source. He fails to ask how Valerius Maximus could have put together a discussion of ius triumphandi at all. In general, Bloomer is too concerned to show that earlier attempts to identify individual sources cannot be proven correct, and fails to allow for the fact that, although Valerius Maximus made heavy use of Cicero and Livy, he clearly did not take everything from them: so rightly Wardle 1998: 16. 14 Sallust echoes: see Bloomer 1992: 110–11. piget taedetque . . . procedere (2.8.7) echoes Iug. 4.9. 15 Mommsen 1887: 133; cf. Ehlers 1939: 498. 16 14.22-4; 22: numquam enim in civili bello supplicatio decreta est (‘for no public thanksgiving has ever been voted in a civil war’). 17 See also Vel. Pat. 2.67.4. 18 6.16.5: dictator de Volscis triumphavit, invidiaeque magis triumphus quam gloriae fuit; quippe domi non militiae partum eum actumque de cive non de hoste fremebant (‘The dictator triumphed over the Volsci, but gained more ill-­will thereby than glory; for men murmured that he had earned it, not in the field, but at home, not over an enemy, but over a citizen’). Oakley 1997–2005: 1.537 compares with Livy 3.63.8, 8.33.13; Vell. Pat. 2.67.4. See also Livy 1.23.1. 19 See also Lange 2012. 20 Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 334–2. 21 Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 26–33; Bleckmann 2012: 24; contra Grünewald 1990: 11. See now also Rees 2012: 40–1. 22 On genre and as a general introduction, see Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 1–37; MacCormack 1981: 1–14; Rees 2012.

Notes to pp. 99–101

251

23 See also Grünewald 1990: 77. In the Late Republic, as during the Later Roman Empire, the evidence suggests that in most cases the Romans full well knew the difference between triumph, adventus and triumph-­like ceremonies (contra Beard 2007: 324). Or perhaps more significantly, they knew that exclusively civil war triumphs and civil war celebrations in general were problematic and were best avoided. 24 According to Davies 2004: 234–6, Ammianus was a self-­declared Greek who wrote history in Latin (235). See Fornara 1992 on Ammianus’ thorough knowledge of Latin literature. 25 Cf. Val. Max. 2.8.4. 26 RG 13: the temple was closed when victories had secured peace by land and sea throughout the empire, used in relation both to foreign and to civil war. 27 On his use of earlier evidence, see Kelly 2008. For a different reading of Constantius II and his entry into Rome, see now Bjørnebye 2013. 28 Cameron 1979: 382–9 on the entry into Rome. 29 Stilicho’s victories at Pollentia and Verona 402 CE; cf. McCormick 1986: 51; Beard 2007: 326. 30 his annis, qui lustra mihi bis dena recensent, / nostra ter Augustos intra pomeria vidi, / temporibus variis; eadem sed causa tropaei / civilis dissensus erat. venere superbi, / scilicet ut Latio respersos sanguine currus / adspicerem! quisquamne piae laetanda parenti /natorum lamenta putet? periere tyranni, / sed nobis periere tamen. Cum Gallica vulgo / proelia iactaret, tacuit Pharsalica Caesar. / namque inter socias acies cognataque signa / ut vinci miserum, numquam vicisse decorum / restituat priscum per te iam gloria morem / verior, et fructum sincerae laudis ab hoste / desuetum iam redde mihi iustisque furoris / externi spoliis sontes absolve triumphos (‘During these years which number twice ten lustres, I have but thrice seen an emperor enter my walls; the times differed but the reason for their celebrations was the same – civil war. Did they come in their pride that I should see their chariots stained with Italy’s blood. Can any think a mother finds joy in the tears of her offspring? The tyrants were slain, but even they died for me. Caesar boasted of his battles in Gaul but said nought about Pharsalia. Where the two sides bear the same standards and are of one blood, as defeat is ever shameful so victory brings no honour. See thou to it that now a truer glory will restore the ancient ways; give me back the joy, long a stranger to me, of honest fame won from the enemy, and make good offensive triumphs by means of spoils won just by foreign madness’). 31 Lundgreen 2011: 178–253. Other recent discussions of triumphal regulations include Auliard 2001; Itgenshorst 2005: esp. 180–8; Beard 2007: esp. 187–218; Pittenger 2008; Goldbeck and Mittag 2008; Lange 2011: 621–2; Rich 2013; Vervaet 2014c: 68–130. The classic treatments are Richardson 1975; Develin 1978. The discussion about Roman ‘triumphal law’ has raged for a long time. Richardson

252

Notes to pp. 101–103

(1975) claims a series of ad hoc compromises, whereas Develin (1978) suggests more fundamental regulations (without much trial and error in the Senate’s approach) and Pittenger (2008) declines a rigid juridical system. Beard, taking a revisionist approach, is, as already mentioned, overly sceptical about the possibility of reconstructing customary practices. A major problem with her book is the lack of interest in chronology and historical development. Vervaet (2014c: esp. 117–19) wisely suggests that at any given time during the Republic there existed a set of ‘largely customary rules and regulations’ (119). 32 Mostly mentioned as bellum civile in the ancient evidence. See Rosenberger 1992: 40. The war of the Socii (91–89) is mentioned in the ancient evidence as bellum Marsicum, bellum Italicum or bellum sociale. Bellum Marsicum appears as the ‘official’ name of the war, as it is mentioned on the Fasti Consulares (Degrassi 1947: 54–5; cf. Fasti Venusini (Degrassi 1947: 254–5)). Bellum sociale is found in Cicero (Font. 41; cf. Val. Max. 1.6.4; see Rosenberger 1992: 35–9, 38 for more evidence). Rosenberger is right to point out that bellum sociale comes close to bellum civile. In 89 BCE, Cn. Pompeius Strabo, the father of Pompeius Magnus, celebrated a triumph over a longstanding Italian ally of Rome: de Asculaneis Picentibus (Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 563). For a thorough examination of the civil war between Marius and Sulla and its consequences, focusing on military developments and the chronology of the period from 91 to 70, see now Sampson 2013. See also Chapters 1 and 2. 33 App., B Civ. 1.94: the head of the son of Marius was then sent to Sulla, which was then placed in the Forum in front of the Rostra. 34 Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 563. For the triumph 81: Cic., Leg. Man. 3.8; Val. Max. 2.8.7; Plin., HN 33.16; Plut., Sull. 34; App., B Civ. 1.101; Eutr. 5.9; Degrassi 1937: 18. 35 Val. Max. 9.3.8; Tac., Hist. 3.72; cf. RG 24 on Octavian/Augustus; Lange 2009: esp. 139–40. 36 See also Itgenshorst 2004: 445, n. 31. 37 Sumi 2002: 422; cf. 2005: 31–2; cf. Lundgreen 2011: 223. Östenberg rightly points out that Marius the younger’s name is mentioned on a titulus (Östenberg 2013: 822, n. 48; Plin., HN 33.16). 38 Val. Max. 2.8.7; contra Plin., HN 33.16. 39 Val. Max. 9.7; Flor. 2.9.6-7. 40 Leg. Man. 3.8. Licinius Murena celebrated a triumph over Mithridates the same year as Sulla. See Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 563. 41 It must be assumed that the list of spoils is from the catalogue submitted to the state treasury (cf. Cic., Verr. 2.1.21.57: in tabulas publicas ad aerarium). 42 According to Behr 1993: 137 the defeated Romans were ‘converted’ into Samnites – in reference to the slaughter of the so-­called Samnites after his victory in the battle of the Colline Gate (cf. Luke 2014: 45–6 for the evidence). According to Appian (B Civ. 1.87) the ‘Samnites’ were the partisans of Marcus Lamponius (Lucanian) and

Notes to pp. 103–105

253

Pontius Telesinus (cf. Dart 2014: 204). App., B Civ. 1.93: the killing of ‘Samnite’ prisoners included two Romans who were captured and not spared ‘even though they were Romans’. This suggests Italian insurgents (rightly so Dart 2014: 206. According to Dart the war was technically a foreign war (Dart 2014: 1)). Here we see an example of manipulating labels, providing a precursor to later cases of civil war (see below). App., B Civ. 1.55 does however point to the continuation of hostilities associated with the war against the Socii in the civil war between Marius and Sulla. Whatever the case, the civil war aspect was not the reason for the awarding of the triumph. 43 Plin., HN 33.16. On placards, see Östenberg 2009d. 44 For the traditional view: Bleicken 1962; Ungern-Sternberg 1970; critique: Drummond 1995: 95–105; Lintott 1999a: 89–93; 1999b: 149–74; Golden 2013: 104–9. 45 Cic., Phil 5.34; 8.14; Rab.Perd. 20; Sall., Hist. 1.77.20; Asc. 34C; RG 1.1. 46 Which appears only twice in the ancient evidence: Caes., B. Civ. 1.5; Livy 3.4.9. 47 Golden 2013: 149. 48 Lintott 1999a: 91; 1999b: 153. 49 On Sulla and justification, see Vervaet 2004. On the triumvirs’ use of Sulla as a model, see Vervaet 2004: esp. 58. 50 Flor. 2.9.8; Plut., Sull. 10.1; Vell. Pat. 2.19.1. Flower 2006: 90–8, emphasizing the end of the model of consensus politics (96). On hostis declarations, see Nippel 1995: esp. 66–7. The classic study is Vittinghoff 1936. On the related topic of ‘damnatio memoriae’, see also Hedrick 2000; Lange 2009: esp. 68–9, 136–40; Cadario 2013, with bibliography. 51 App., B Civ. 1.57-9; Livy, Per. 77; Plut., Sull. 9; Vell. Pat. 2.19; Steel 2013: 93. 52 For a vivid descriptions of events, see Dio Cass. fr. 109 (books 30–35?), including the very public show of the proscription lists on white boards and displaying of the heads of the enemies on the Rostra in the Forum. It also includes a comparison between the slaughter of Romans by Sulla and Mithridates. 53 App., Mith. 51.204; B Civ. 1.73. 54 Livy, Per. 77; Val. Max. 3.1.2b; Vell. Pat. 2.19.1; Sen., Prov. 3.7; Clem. 1.12.1; Luc. 2.160; Plut., Cat. Min. 3.2-4; App., B Civ. 1.71; Mithr. 51. See Flower 2006: 92. 55 Cic., Leg. 2.56; Val. Max. 9.2.1; Luc. 1.583-584; Hinard 1985: 80–1. 56 Plut., Caes. 6; Vell. Pat. 2.43.4; Suet., Iul. 11.2; Val. Max. 6.9.14, later restored by Caesar. On violence and civil war, see Osgood 2006; Kalyvas 2006; Kristensen 2015. 57 Degrassi 1947: 79 BCE: 564; 71 BCE: 565; 61 BCE: 84–5, 566. See now mainly Vervaet 2014b for the context of Pompeius’ triumphs. 58 App., B Civ. 1.80; Plut., Pomp. 11; Eutr. 5.9.1. 59 For the date between 82 and 79, see Beard 2007: 16 and n. 28. The African triumph: Cic., Leg. Man. 61, cf. 28; Pis. 58; Phil. 5.43; Auct., B Afr. 22.3; Livy, Per. 89; Vell. Pat.

254

Notes to pp. 105–107

2.40.4, 53.2-3; Val. Max. 8.15.8; Luc. 6.817; 7.685; 8.24; Plin., HN 7.95; 8.4; 37.13; Plut., Pomp. 14; Crass. 7.1; 12.1; Sert. 18.3; Apophth. Pomp. 5; App., B Civ. 1.80, Vir. Ill. 77.2; Eutr. 5.9.1; Zonar. 10.2, 5. 60 Plut., Pomp. 14. On the lack of status of Pompeius: Plut., Sert. 18.2; Cic., Leg. Man. 61; Plin., HN 7.95; Val. Max. 8.15.8. See Mommsen 1887.1: 131–2; Beard 2007: 15–18; Lundgreen 2011: 233–6 on the controversies of this triumph. 61 Comp. Lys. et Sull. 2.4; Plut., Pomp. 13. 62 Plin., HN 8.4; Plut., Pomp. 14.4. 63 See Havener 2014: 170; I do not however see a compromising gesture. 64 Plut., Pomp. 14; Frontin., Str. 4.5.1: Cn. Pompeius minantibus direpturos pecuniam militibus, quae in triumphum ferretur, Servilio et Glaucia cohortantibus, ut divideret eam, ne seditio fieret, adfirmavit non triumphaturum se potius et moriturum, quam licentiae militum succumberet, castigatisque oratione gravi laureatos fasces obiecit, ut ab illorum inciperent direptione; eaque invidia redegit eos ad modestiam (‘When the soldiers of Gnaeus Pompeius threatened to plunder the money which was being carried for the triumph, Servilius and Glaucia urged him to distribute it among the troops, in order to avoid the outbreak of a mutiny. Thereupon Pompeius declared he would forego a triumph, and would die rather than yield to the insubordination of his soldiers; and after upbraiding them in vehement language, he threw in their faces the fasces wreathed with laurel, that they might start their plundering by seizing these. Through the odium thus aroused he reduced his men to obedience’) (cf. Plut., Pomp. 14; Apopht. Pomp. 6; Zonar. 10.2). 65 The Spanish triumph of Pompeius: Cic., Leg. Man. 62; Pis. 58; Sest. 129; Div. 2.22; Vell. Pat. 2.30.2, 40.4, 53.3; Val. Max. 8.15.8; Luc. 7.14; 8.809-15; Plin., HN 7.95-96; Plut., Pomp. 22.1; 23.2; 45.5; Crass. 11.8; 12.4; App., B Civ. 1.121; Flor. 2.10.9; Dio Cass. 36.25.3; Eutr. 6.5.2; Zonar. 10.2, 5. For Metellus Pius’ triumph, see Degrassi 1947: 565. 66 Most famously he built his theatre in Rome after his third triumph in 61; see Beard 2007: 7–41. 67 Cf. App., B Civ. 1.121. 68 Both men celebrated triumphs ex Hisp. For Metellus, duly holding his triumph before that of Pompeius, see Degrassi 1947: 565. 69 Metellus had disbanded his army on arrival in Italy (Sall., Hist. 2 fr. 49). In 62 Pompeius decided finally to follow the law and disbanded his army at Brundisium, to everybody’s amazement (Dio Cass. 37.20.6; Vell. Pat. 2.40.2-3; Plut., Pomp. 43; App., Mith. 116). 70 See now Morstein-Marx 2007; 2009. He points out that the right to pursue the consulship in absentia was conferred in the Law of the Ten Tribunes of 52. Caesar should therefore have been allowed to be elected consul while still at the head of his army (Morstein-Marx 2009: esp. 126–7).

Notes to pp. 107–110

255

71 B Civ. 1.9.5; cf. 1.8.3; 1.9.3; B Gall. 6.1.2. For the titles of Caesar’s books, see Rosenberger 1992: 176–9. 72 Only twice does Caesar use the phrase bellum civile (2.29.3; 3.1.4). 73 Gelzer 1967: 443; Collins 1972: 957; Henderson 1998: 37–69. 74 Lange 2009: 26–33, 59–71. 75 Cic., Phil. 14.23; Dio Cass. 42.18.1. He did however associate Pharsalus with the Temple of Venus Genetrix (as opposed to Pompeius’ Venus Vitrix) on the Forum Iulium (spoils from the wars in Gaul), a temple dedicated on the 26 September, the day of his last triumph (Dio Cass. 43.22.1-2), but vowed at Pharsalus (App., B Civ. 2.68; 2.102; see Westall 1996). After Pharsalus the Senate overthrew statues of Sulla and Pompeius at the Rostra. They were restored by Caesar (Dio Cass. 42.18.2; 43.49.1). Both the overthrow and restoration suggest civil war in a very public way. Dio Cassius claims that Caesar was praised for restoring the statues (43.49.2). 76 Grillo (2012) suggests that Caesar described his enemy much like Cicero did Antonius in the Philippics (in general 106–30; and see below): the non-Roman supporters of Pompeius are called barbarians, whereas the supporters of Caesar are not – here he uses their names (111). He concludes: ‘. . .: portraying Pompey as a barbarian, Caesar anticipates Octavian by presenting civil conflict in terms of foreign war; he attempts to resolve the stasis by minimizing its intensity and denying that the conflict takes place within the state. The Bellum Civile tells the story of non-Roman enemies threatening the Republic, so that the internal problem becomes external’ (117). This cannot be, and indeed makes very little sense. The main point that needs to be made is that Caesar does not say that there was no civil war, but he did not start the civil strife; he was forced into it by Romans behaving like barbarians. 77 B Civ. 3.99.4; cf. Oros. 6.15.27. 78 See now Westall 2013. 79 Cf. Lange 2011: 621–2 on Actium. 80 Livy, Per. 115; Vell. Pat. 2.56.1-2; Plin., HN 9.171; 14.97; 19.144; Suet., Iul. 37; 49.4; 54.3; Aug. 8.1; Plut., Caes. 55; App., B Civ. 2.101-2; Flor. 2.13.88-9; Dio Cass. 43.14.3; 19.1-2; Oros. 6.16.6; Zonar. 10.10; Fasti Cuprenses: Degrassi 1947: 244. 81 Dio Cass. 42.20.1: a carte blanche? 82 Dio Cass. 42.20.5; 43.14.3. See Weinstock 1971: 68–71 on the white horses. 83 See also Chapter 4. 84 Although Caesar’s ovation of 44 was odd in that there was neither an enemy nor a preceding war (ovans ex monte Albano: Dio Cass. 44.4.3; Suet., Iul. 79; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567). 85 contra Gurval 1995: 23. 86 Rightly so Luke 2014: 121. Livy, Per. 116; Vell. Pat. 2.56; Suet., Iul. 37; Plin., HN 14.97; Quint., Inst. 6.3.61; Plut., Caes. 56.7; Dio Cass. 43.42.1-3; Flor. 2.13.88; Sumi 2005: 63–4.

256

Notes to pp. 110–113

87 Plut., Caes. 56; Dio Cass. 43.42.1. 88 Dio Cass. 43.42.1; cf. Dio Cass. 43.31.1; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567; Rich 1996: 94 and n. 35; Vervaet 2014c: 81–2, 247–50. 89 Dio Cass. 42.20.1; Jehne 1987: 55; cf. below on the triumviral assignment of Octavian. 90 Although we lack Fasti notices; Cic., Font. 64; Vell. 2.55.2; Suet., Iul. 56.1 talk of bellum Hispaniense. 91 On their composition, and the high proportion of Spanish auxiliaries see BHisp. 7.4-5, 42.6; Brunt 1971: 474. 92 Florus 2.13.89 is much too generous to Caesar: Pharsalia et Thapsos et Munda nusquam. et quanto maiora erant, de quibus non triumphabat! (‘Pharsalia, Thapsus and Munda made no appearance; yet how much greater were the victories for which he had no triumph!’). 93 Dio Cass. 44.4; Beard 2007: 275–7. 94 Lange 2009: 14–18. On the subject, see now mainly Arena (2012: 8): ‘Contrary to the very common claim that in political debates each side supported opposing policies by referring to its own notion of libertas, I have tried to show that politicians on both sides of a political debate referred to a commonly shared notion of liberty, understood as a status of non-­subjection to the arbitrary will of either a foreign power or a domestic group or individual’. 95 Dio Cass. 41.57.1-2 on Pompeius and Caesar calling each other tyrant and themselves liberators. 96 RG 1.3: Octavian was given imperium and as praetor he was ordered to ensure Rome would come to no harm. There is no talk of a foreign enemy. 97 See now especially Manuwald 2007. 98 See also Pina Polo 2006: it was commonplace during the Late Republic to accuse opponents of tyranny. All of Cicero’s political rivals were called so (Pina Polo 2006: 73). 99 See Lintott 2008: 374–407. 100 Cf. 3.5; 3.28-29; 3.32-33; 3.36; 4.16; 5.30; 6.2; 6.19; 7.14; 8.32; Fam. 10.28.1-2; 12.25.2. Similarly, Caesar is also called tyrannus in the Philippics: 2.90; 2.96; 2.110; 2.117; Manuwald 2007: 340. 101 Pina Polo 2010: 87 rightly suggests that Cicero was one of the great promoters of the civil war of 43. 102 See also Pina Polo 2006: esp. 76, suggesting that Cicero claims the war to be a bellum iustum, undertaken against a hostis (Cic., Phil. 3.33-35; 4.11; 5.31; 7.7-9 etc.). 103 22: nunquam enim in civili bello supplicatio decreta est (‘for no public thanksgiving has ever been voted in a civil war). Again, the justification is a hostis declaration’ (Phil. 14.24)).

Notes to pp. 113–114

257

104 For Cicero’s own references to this decision, see Cat. 3.15; Pis. 6; Phil. 2.13. On Cicero’s claim to have saved the state, see Fam. 5.2. Cicero does never use the term bellum civile to describe these events. Dio 37.40.2; Cic. Fam. 5.5 and Obsequens 61a confirm that Antonius Hybrida did take a salutation for the defeat of Catiline, contrary to Val. Max. 2.8.7. In view of Obsequens’ statement (which must derive from Livy), there is no possibility of attributing the salutation to a victory in Macedonia. 105 Cicero’s political strategy of getting Antonius declared a hostis and then defeated in battle, thus failed at Mutina. On the strategy, see Manuwald 2011: 199. 106 See also Chapter 4; Cic., Ad Brut. 1.3, 5.1; Livy, Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4; Dio Cass. 46.40.1 and a supplication of fifty days: Cic., Phil. 14.36-38; 14.11; 14.29; Dio Cass. 46.38.1-2; Fam. 11.18.3; App., B Civ. 3.74; Dio Cass. 46.39.3: suggesting sixty days as the only source. Cicero also wanted an ovation for Octavian (Cic., Brut. 1.15.9). The proposal had earlier been mentioned by Brutus himself (Cic., Brut. 1.16.2). However, other sources show that this proposal cannot have led to a senatorial decree to that effect, since there was no honorific mention of Octavian (Livy, Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4-5; App., B Civ. 3.74; Dio Cass. 46.40; cf. App., B Civ. 3.80, 82, 89). 107 According to Kearsley (2013: 830) Octavian may have commemorated Mutina before 32, when he, she suggests, used the same dates as in 43 (14 and 16 April) to have tota Italia take the oath of allegiance (RG 25.2). Although possible, this is conjectural. I do agree that Octavian may have used the Mutina war in his propaganda against Antonius in 32, as this was indeed the second time Antonius had chosen to fight the res publica. Kearsley points to Italian fasti mentioning Mutina. She does however disregard chronology. Octavian may have commemorated Mutina just after the battle, even though he did not get the triumph he wanted – fortunately, in retrospect perhaps, as it was an exclusively civil war. Decimus Brutus was granted a triumph, which he never celebrated. This was clearly later taken up, but vitally, without mentioning the enemy (feriale Cumanum: EJ, p. 48 (16 April); Degrassi 1963: 278–80. Similarly, Prop. 2.1.27; Ov., Met. 15.822-23; Fast. 4.627-628; 4.673-676 are also Augustan). The Fasti Amiternini does mention the war as a civil war, but is altogether different and, anyway, also after 32 (Degrassi 1947: 170–1; see Chapter 6). This may partly rest on the assumption that the war between the triumvirs was inevitable (contra Lange 2009: esp. 49–50, 70). The Mutina tradition thus seems to be mainly Augustan, and clearly omits reference to Antonius (contra Kearsley 2013: 831). 108 App., B Civ. 5.65; Dio Cass. 48.28.4; Lange 2009: esp. 29–33. Fixed-­term tasks, similar to the examples found during the triumvirate (Lange 2009), later became the standard method Augustus used to justify monarchy (Rich 2010; Rich 2012a). Pacifying the Empire was one such task. For a rather different take on imperial

258

Notes to pp. 114–115

peace, see Fuhrmann 2012: 89–121. He seems unaware of Rich 2003 and according to his index of ancient sources he never mentions RG 13, suggesting that peace was always obtained through victory. 109 See also Chapter 4. 110 Osgood 2006: 191; Beard 2007: 267. 111 Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567. 112 Cic., Phil. 3.20-24; 5.38-41; Cic., Fam. 10.34-35; cf. in 47 BCE, Degrassi 1947: 566. 113 Sumi 2005: 189–91. 114 Lepidus’ triumph: Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567; Fasti Barb., see Degrassi 1947: 342–3; Cic., Phil. 13.7-9; Vell. Pat. 2.67.4; App., B Civ. 4.31. When Lepidus later joined Antonius the Senate rescinded his honours: Cic., Fam. 12.10.1; Brut. 1.12.1-2; 15.9; 18.6; Vell. Pat. 2.64.4; App., B Civ. 3.96; Dio Cass. 46.51.4. At almost the same time Munatius Plancus, proconsul in Transalpine Gaul, triumphed over Gauls. For Plancus’s triumph, see Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567; Fasti Barb., see Degrassi 1947: 342–3; CIL 10.6087 = ILS 886; Vell. Pat. 2.67.4, ex Gallia. At their triumphs the soldiers shouted that it was over Germans not Gauls, the Latin word germanus meaning brother. Vell. Pat. 2.67.4; cf. Quint., Inst. 8.3.29; Woodman 1983: 155. See also App., B Civ. 4.31 for the blurring between foreign and civil war. 115 Lange 2015; see also Chapter 7. 116 Von den Hoff et al. (2014: 67) write: ‘Was er selbst später in Anspielung auf die beteiligten Piraten als “Seeräuberkrieg” (Res Gestae 25) bezeichnete, war nicht anderes al ein Bürgerkrieg um Macht und Einfluss’. They continue (2014: 68): ‘In Rom selbst stellte der Senat ein Ehrenmonument in Form einer columna rostrata auf das Forum, die auf ihrer Spitze Imperator Caesar in heroischer Nacktheit zeigte. Die zugehörige Inschrift feierte den jungen Caesar als den Mann, der den Bürgerkrieg beendet und den Frieden wiederhergestellt hatte’. Surprisingly, they do not, however, ask how and why Augustus might have recast this civil war story, or if there might be a logical answer to the problem at hand. 117 App., B Civ. 5.130; Dio Cass. 49.15-6; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569: ovans ex Sicilia. 118 App., B Civ. 5.65; Sumi 2005: 31; Goldbeck and Mittag 2008: 69; Lange 2009: esp. 29, 33–8. 119 Cooley 2009; Dart and Vervaet 2011: 278 suggest that the Senate could only have granted an ovation after the war of 36, as it was first and foremost a civil war. According to Dettenhofer (2000: 38) this is, at least in part, the civil war mentioned in RG 34.1; however in RG 25.1 Augustus mentions slaves and pirates (cf. RG 27.3). Regarding the problems of how to conceptualize this victory, see Itgenshorst 2004: 445, n. 31; Osgood 2006: 301. Osgood is certainly right in stressing that this was more than crushing a slave rebellion. This war was represented mainly as a slave/ pirate war, not just a civil or foreign war (see RG 25.1; Hor., Epod. 9.7-10; Vell. Pat. 2.73.3; Flor. 2.18.1-2; Dio Cass. 48.19.4; Lange 2009: 33–8; Osgood 2006: esp. 203;

Notes to pp. 115–117

259

Cooley 2009: 214; Powell and Welch 2002 for a more sympathetic account of Sextus Pompeius (cf. Welch 2012)). 120 For Octavian’s ovations, see RG 4.1; Suet., Aug. 22.1; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568–9; Fasti Barb., see Degrassi 1947: 342–3. 121 On account of a victory over pirates in Cilicia (Cic., De Or. 1.82; 2.2; Leg. Man. 33; Livy, Per. 68; Trogus, Prolog. 39; Obseq. 44). 122 Vervaet (2014b: 143, and n. 68 and 73) suggests that M. Antonius did not receive a naval triumph because that honour was reserved for unambiguous naval victories (cf. Dart and Vervaet 2011). It must however be remembered that even Duilius’ famous victory at Mylae was connected to a land operation. Following the naval victory, Duilius also had land successes at Segesta and Macella (Duilius’ inscription/elogium, lines 1–5; see Kondratieff 2004; Lange and Rich forthcoming). This is normally always the case (see Vego 2010: 21: ‘War at sea is an integrated part of war as a whole. It has never taken place alone but has been conducted in conjunction with war on land . . .’; cf. Lange 2011, on Actium). On the victory at Mylae, see Polyb. 1.23-25; Frontin., Strat. 2.3.24; Zonar. 8.10-11. 123 Murray and Petsas 1989: 118–19. Östenberg 2009c: 149 is more tentative. App., Mith. 92 on pirate’s use of rams during this period. 124 Degrassi 1947: 564. Isauricus = agnomen. See ILS 36; CIL 6.8.3 37046. First triumph 88 (see Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 563), as proconsul of Cilicia, it seems with the responsibility of clearing out the pirates (Cic., Verr. II.5.26.66, he is contrasted to Verres, who only lost Roman ships and devastating his province. Cicero adds with irony that the only thing left for the Senate was to award him with a naval triumph). Again, we cannot with any kind of certainty infer from this piece of information that Servilius’ triumph was a naval triumph. 125 See mainly App., Mithr. 93; Flor. 1.41; Claud., in Eutrop. 1.217 on the unsuccessful campaign. See MRR II for 78–74 BCE; Degrassi 1947: 564 for more evidence of the triumph. He failed to punish the pirates who had captured Caesar (Vell. Pat. 2.41-42; Suet., Iul. 4; Plut., Caes. 1.8-2.7; Pelling 2011: 138–41). 126 Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566; Vell. Pat. 2.31.2. Bellum piraticum: Vell. Pat. 2.33.1; Plin., HN 3.101; 7.115; 10.45; 16.7; Tac., Ann. 15.25.3; SHA, Prob. 2.3; Eutr. 6.16. Contrary to the views presented, Vervaet (2014b: 144, n. 73) believes Aulus Gelius to be right when emphasizing that victory over pirates could only ever produce an ovation (cf. Rich 2014: 23). Rich (2014: 234) suggests that M. Antonius held an ovation due to the foe being deemed unworthy – Cilician pirates – but the growing of piracy during the period down to Pompeius’ victory over them in the 60s does suggest otherwise. 127 Crawford 1996: no. 12, 231–70, col. 3, 28–42. 128 App., Sic. 6; Flor. 3.7; Diod. Sic. 40.1. 129 Welch 2012: esp. 182–95.

260

Notes to pp. 117–120

130 Welch 2012: 234. 131 Lange 2009: 27. 132 See Lange 2009: esp. 26–33; App., B Civ. 5.65 on the task of eliminating Sextus. 133 B Civ. 5.65: πολεμεῖν δὲ Πομπηίῳ μὲν Καίσαρα, εἰ μή τι συμβαίνοι, Παρθυαίοις δὲ Ἀντώνιον, ἀμυνόμενον τῆς ἐς Κράσσον παρασπονδήσεως (‘Octavian was to make war against Pompeius unless they should come to some arrangement, and Antony was to make war against the Parthians to avenge their treachery toward Crassus’). As I noted in 2009 (Lange 2009: 30): ‘The possibility of an accommodation with Sextus Pompeius was thus clearly being considered at this time. The provision that Octavian should make war against Sextus Pompeius “unless they should come to some arrangement” (εἰ μή τι συμβαίνοι) took account of the fact that Antonius had already entered negotiations with him (App., B Civ. 5.65).’ 134 Dio Cass. 48.36.5; App., B Civ. 5.72. 135 Octavian later divorced Scribonia and married Livia; Vell. 2.79.2; 94.1; Tac., Ann. 1.10; Suet., Aug. 62.2; 69.1; Dio Cass. 48.34.4; 43.6; 44. 136 Dio Cass. 48.31.5: on the impact of Sextus Pompeius in Rome in 40, as mentioned above. During games in the circus people applauded a statue of Neptune carried in procession, and performed violence on the statues of Octavian and Antonius. 137 Suet., Aug. 9; 16.1; 22; Plin., HN 7.178; 9.55; 16.7 (also mentioning pirates); Oros. 6.18.2; Luc. 6.422 calls Sextus Pompeius Siculus pirata or bellum Siciliense (as Suet., Aug. 70.2; Rosenberger 1992: 56–9). 138 See Chapter 3; see also Oros. 6.18; Welch 2012: 10, n. 41. 139 See Koortbojian 2013: 205–6 on the debate about the statue on the column. A coin (RIC 12 271) may suggest that Octavian was represented in the nude, but this is contradicted by Appian, stating that he was shown in the garb he wore when entering the city. Koortbojian asks if the monument was ever erected (205–6), suggesting instead that this only happened after Actium. It should however be added that the inscription mentioned by Appian clearly suggests the monument was built. Koortbojian (207) points to the fact that Dio Cassius does not mention this particular monument, but Dio Cassius was critical of ruler worship and thus may have chosen to overlook it. 140 See also Lange 2009: 33–8. Ladewig (2014: 218) typifies what might be labelled the traditional assessment as to why Octavian called his enemy a pirate, i.e., a nonRoman: ‘. . ., um sich so vom Makel des Bürgerkrieges, der offen zwischen ihm und Sextus Pompeius ausgefochten wurde, zu befreien’. This makes very little sense, as Octavian was granted an ovation and also claimed to have ended the civil war, thus accomplishing the triumviral assignment. 141 Lange 2009; Rich 2010; 2012a. 142 App., B Civ. 1.60. On bellum servile, see Rosenberger 1992: 160–2, 163 on pirates. The slogan terra marique recurs throughout Augustan ideology, but may also here

Notes to p. 120

261

point to the simple fact that the war against Sextus Pompeius was both a naval and a land war: against both pirates and slaves. This becomes even more convincing if we trace its Roman use. In 67 the lex Gabinia provided Pompeius Magnus with an extensive imperium over the Mediterranean Sea and its coasts (imperium terra marique), in order to crush the piracy threat (Nicolet 1991: 36–7). RG 3.1; App., B Civ. 5.130; the inscription of the Victory Monument at Actium (see Chapter 6); Momigliano 1942; Lange 2009: esp. 114, on the Hellenistic slogan of ‘Rule over Land and Sea’ turned into the Augustan slogan of ‘Peace on Land and Sea’, and 121–3. 143 Cf. Polybius (1.65-88), who suggests that the Carthaginian mercenary revolt (1.66.10; 1.67.2; 1.67.5: stasis) during the First Punic War was an internal problem as well as an internal war (1.65.2; 1.71.8: emphylios polemos). For example: tyrants were often described as conquerors of their own people, figuratively enslaving them. For ‘political slavery’, see Nyquist 2013, also emphasizing that internal and external political freedom and slavery are rarely distinguished (esp. 10). Slavery, tyranny and civil war/stasis were an integrated part of Greek and Roman political discourse, carrying significant polemical power. See also Ober 2003: 226: ‘The persuasive power of the democratic Athenian association of tyrant-­killers with democrats and tyrants with antidemocrats is elucidated by evidence for tyrant-­ slayer ideology in democratic poleis outside Athens’ (cf. 230 on enslavement). Tyrants and slaves belong together in antiquity. 144 M. Antonius’ triumph 102 (Degrassi 1947: 561–2) and M. Aquillius 99 in Sicily (slave wars: 132 BCE, Perperna and (perhaps) Rupilius (Degrassi 1947: 558); 99 BCE (Degrassi 1947: 562); 71 BCE, for Licinius Crassus’ ovation over Spartacus (Degrassi 1947: 565). See Bradley 1998; Strauss 2010 on the slave wars 135–132, 104–100 BCE. Morton 2014 rightly emphasizes that the two Sicilian slave wars were different and thus triggered different Roman responses. However, he may underestimate the critically important role of the fugitivi – to avoid classing these rebellions as insurgencies and slave wars remains a purely semantic discussion, as runaway slaves in each instance took the lead. 145 See Grossman 2009. 146 Shaw 1984. On pp. 33–4 he refers to the pirate Sextus Pompeius, with Octavian in the role, similar to Pompeius Magnus, as the anti-­bandit. 147 Martin (2014: xix) on the Afghan conflict in Helmand: ‘. . . as many of my interviewees habitually manipulated the labels that they applied to others and to themselves’. Often in this local conflict labels such as ‘government’ and ‘Taliban’ were used by individuals for personal reasons (cf. 131: a local enemy of those working for the government is by definition a Taliban, as the government’s enemy is the Taliban). Scholars of course need to be careful not to become victims of our own or of other’s labels.

262

Notes to pp. 121–122

148 See Lintott 2008: esp. 366–73; Pina Polo 2006: 75: Cicero’s political testament. 149 Off. 1.31-41, also drawing a fascinating distinction between wars of survival and wars against rivals of power (38). 150 Scheid 2007; Cooley 2009; Lange 2009: esp. 5–8. On the discussion concerning the RG and lies and deception: see Ridley 2003, and, for a more balanced account, Rich 2010. 151 Lange 2009: 18–26. 152 Since the war was also a civil war, Octavian/Augustus had an interest in playing down the carnage. Plut., Ant. 68.1 suggests that there were no more than 5,000 enemy dead at Actium. It may be no coincidence that, since the early second century, 5,000 had probably been the minimum number of enemy dead to qualify a commander for a triumph. Augustus claimed to have killed just enough enemies to earn his Actian triumph (Lange 2011). Lundgreen (2014: 18 and n. 7) claims that this is not relevant due to imperial conceptions of this triumph. However, the Actium triumph was granted in 31. I would claim that Octavian sought, at least in part, to place himself within tradition. He acted no differently than others before him during the Late Republic. 153 Havener cites the Fasti Amiternini, referring to Actium as a civil war (Havener 2014: 174). However this ignores the parallel evidence entirely (see Chapter 6). His conclusion that Actium was only a civil war and celebrated as such is not supported by the majority of the evidence. He mentions the Victory Monument at Actium, but overlooks the crucial detail that no enemy is mentioned on the inscription. He also suggests that the reason why no civil wars are mentioned in the Fasti Triumphales is Augustan justification: Augustus ended the civil war, even extinguishing the very concept. The joint ovation from 40 of Antonius and Octavian, for avoiding civil war, suggests otherwise: if Augustus believed it necessary to manipulate the triumphal records, he surely would have changed the one that mentions both himself and his main opponent. Havener is right, however, to stress that the second-day triumph did not represent a triumph over Cleopatra (two separate entries in the Fasti Triumphales), and that the implied enemy on the second day was Antonius, although he was not mentioned by name (the question arises what the Fasti Triumphales Actium entry would have said? I assume a geographical term, certainly no enemy would have been mentioned). 154 On triumphs being voted without being requested, see Dio Cass. 42.20.1-5; 43.14.2-3 on Caesar. The decreeing for Decimus Brutus after Mutina followed the same pattern. For the traditional procedure of requesting a triumph, see Dion. Hal. 3.22.3; Livy 3.63.5-11. 155 It may be that Dio Cassius only knew that a decree was passed, not whether it was implemented (Rich 1998: 78–9; Swan 2004: 21–3; Lange 2009: 125–57). 156 Lange 2009: esp. 79–90.

Notes to pp. 122–126

263

157 According to Pelling (2010: 108) Actium became a civil war only in retrospect; the war was declared against Cleopatra, as she was allegedly planning to invade Italy with Antonius (Livy, Per. 132; Vell. Pat. 2.82.4; Tac., Ann. 3.18; Plut., Ant. 56.1-2, 4; 57.3; 58.1-2; 60.2; 62; Paus. 4.31; Dio Cass. 50.3.2; 50.9.2; 50.12-3; Flor. 2.21.1-3). The main argument against Pelling is the historical context (Lange 2009). Furthermore, later sources would have worked from contemporary evidence, at least implicitly. 158 Dio Cass. 50.4.4-5; Santangelo 2008; Rich 2011b: 204–9; Ladewig (2014: 233) strangely proposes that the enemy described in RG 3.1 as having been defeated terra marique is in fact Antonius, branding him as it were as a foreign enemy. This cannot be. First, there is talk of bella terra et mari civilia externaque. Secondly, the foreign enemy is clearly Cleopatra (RG 27.1: Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci). This way Octavian could claim to have ended the civil war once again – the civil war ended after Naulochus, but begun again by Antonius, aiding Cleopatra (see Lange 2009: 79–90; Lange 2011: esp. 82–4) – as well as having defeated a foreign enemy (Cleopatra). 159 Lange 2009: 60–93. 160 Against this view, see Suet., Aug. 17.2; App., B Civ. 4.38, 4.45. 161 Lange 2009: 68–9; contra Eder 1990: 100, who agrees that Antonius was not declared a hostis but then adds: ‘the declaration of war was directed against Cleopatra. The new war was not going to be a civil war’. 162 Beard 2007: 303; cf. Sumi 2005: 216. The omission of the Actium triumph in the Fasti Barberiniani is probably just a stone-­cutter’s error. It certainly cannot be anything to do with qualms about the triumph’s civil war character (Beard 2007: 303–5; Lange 2009: 150–51; contra Gurval 1995: 31–2). 163 Lange 2009: esp. 125–57 on the honours after Actium. 164 On the ritual: Rüpke 1990: 225–6; cf. Flaig 2004: esp. 32. 165 See Chapter 6.

Chapter 6 1 Degrassi 1963: 159; here Antonius’ name is not forgotten. 2 Zanker 1987: 88: ‘Angesichts der Fülle von Denkmälern vergißt man leicht, wie problematisch die Verherrlichung des Sieges von Actium war, bei der man nicht an den eigentlichen Gegner erinnern durfte’. See Kellum 2010 on freedmen and the importance of Actium, including this group’s iconographic use of the battle, rightly criticising both Syme’s and Zanker’s approach to the battle. As a matter of caution however, it must be remembered that rostra and ships can also point to other naval battles.

264 3 4 5 6 7

Notes to pp. 126–129

See Chapter 5. Cf. Wienand 2012: 212–13. See Epilogue. Rightly so Farrell and Nelis 2013: 3–4. Due to the need for brevity, the Fasti Triumphales records only geographical details of some victories. This continues after the civil war period, and even during the civil war period it occurs for non-­civil war victories. This is also known from parallel evidence. See Rosenberger 1992 for the ways in which Romans named their wars. Phang 2011: 140–2 on new trends, including how the Romans portrayed the enemies of Rome; cf. Lange 2008. Gotter 2011: 61–2, highlights the importance of assigning blame. This of course became more problematic in a civil war context, as the enemy then needed, at least in principle, to be mentioned. 8 See Cooley 2012: 64–7; cf. Hope 2003: 90–92; Östenberg 2014: 189. 9 Lange 2009: esp. 125–57. 10 See Chapters 4 and 5. 11 Cooley 2012: 85. 12 Cic., Ad Brut. 1.15.8; Livy, Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4; Val. Max. 5.2.10; App., B Civ. 3.76. 13 CIL 6.40899–40901. See also Coarelli 1999a; Coarelli 1999b; Gerding 2008, although his re-­dating of the monument of Hirtius is unconvincing. 14 Cooley 2012: 66. 15 Prop. 1.21–22; Tac., Hist. 2.45; 2.70; Suet., Vit. 10; Hope 2003: 88; the impact will certainly have been the same in Republican times; on impact of civil war, see Osgood 2006; Osgood 2014b; Börm et al. 2015. 16 Cf. Hedrick 2000. 17 Kalyvas 2006: 17. See Luc. 1.21: bellum nefandum (unspeakable war), even though for little real purpose, as civil war is the subject of Lucan’s book De Bello Civili (unspeakable war = civil war: 1.324–325); cf. Val. Flac., Argonautica, 3.15: infanda proelia (unspeakable battles). See Stover 2012: esp. 124; cf. 113–50, for ways of describing civil war in first-century CE poetry. 18 Insurgency is a military practice or operational doctrine: an armed rebellion against a constituted authority, similar to guerrilla warfare. See now Simpson 2012. See Newman 2014: 89–101 on the American Civil War. 19 The Res Gestae is, as mentioned, a foremost example, describing the war against Antonius as a civil war: RG 1.1, 3.1, 34.1; cf. 2. 20 Actium as a civil war: RG 3.1, 34.1; Livy, Per. 133; Vell. Pat. 2.84–87.1; Sen., Clem.1.11.1; Apocol. 10.2; Suet., Aug. 9 (list of civil wars, including Actium); Flor. 2.21.2. In Suetonius Egypt is mentioned in chapter 9 as a foreign war (= RG 27. As a result the civil wars in RG 3, 34 must include Actium, esp. given the date of 28–27). For more evidence and for my approach (mainly looking at chronology and

Notes to pp. 129–131

265

context), see Lange 2009: 73–93. For a different approach on how to conceptualize (or ignore) the civil war, including Actium, see Richardson 2012: 197–207, on the Res Gestae. He claims that chapter 25 on Sextus Pompeius and Actium does not indicate civil war and the civil war opponents are included in the foreign enemy catalogue (203). He unfortunately reads the chapters of the Res Gestae in isolation, overlooking their context; a context that prominently mentions civil war (1.1; 3.1; 34.1). He concludes that the Res Gestae is a masterpiece of spin (205), but does not offer an explanation as to why Augustus mentioned civil war so prominently. His final comment however stands: ‘There is nothing defensive about the Res Gestae’ (207). 21 See Chapter 5; Rich 2011b: 204–9. 22 contra Rosenberger 1992: 61. 23 See also Plut., Ant. 59.2; 60.1. Against this view, see Suet., Aug. 17.2; App., B Civ. 4.38, 4.45. 24 RG 24.1 on a male opponent, whose name is left unmentioned; Lange 2009: 60–70, 136–40; contra Ridley 2003: 124–5, Cooley 2009: 212, suggesting, strangely, that Augustus incidentally revealed his real opponent to be Antonius. This was never incidental. 25 Amm. Marc. 31.16.15. Lange 2009: 125–57 on the honours. The term ‘triumphal arch’ seems to refer to the quadriga on top of the monument. See Lusnia 2006: 275. Beard 2007: 45–6 on the third century. 26 Rich 1998: 106; contra Gurval 1995: 40–41, 47–64. 27 Cf. Lange 2009: 163–6; contra Nedergaard 2001. She however refutes the misunderstanding that a single spanned arch existed before the triple arch (213). Hannestad 2001: 146–7 talks of the Actium Arch being demolished, even though we have no knowledge of this. It would have been a strange thing to do. The Parthian Settlement continues to provoke controversy and conceptual problems. Droge 2011/12: 89: ‘But it was that settlement – suitably (mis)represented as a great military triumph – . . .’. But the more this is stressed, the more obvious it becomes that the victory was not part of the Fasti Triumphales – it does not have an entry. 28 On the corona obsidionalis, see Plin., HN 22.13 and Dio Cass. 51.19.5. Dio Cass. 51.19.4-7 on the Alexandria list, 1 August should be feriae. On the connection between the capture of Alexandria and freeing the state, see EJ, p. 49 (1 August) = Fasti Prae.; Arv.; Amit.; Degrassi 1947: 489; Rich and Williams 1999: 184–5. On Caesar and the corona obsidionalis (45 BCE), see Cadario 2006: 54–5. 29 For the problems of conceptualization, see Lange 2009: 90–93. 30 For further discussion about the size and placement of the inscription, see Rich 1998: esp. 103, 114, contra Gurval 1995: 42; Spannagel 1999: 237, n. 1003 and 247, n. 1057, who both reject the Actium arch as the location of the inscription, although

266

Notes to pp. 131–136

rather inconclusively, neither of them present a useful alternative, and they both ignore the historical context. 31 Nedergaard 2001: 113, n. 51; cf. Gurval 1995: 42; contra Rich 1998: 100–15; Rich and Williams 1999: 184–5. 32 For other possibilities, see Gurval 1995: 42, contested by Lange 2009: 165–6. 33 App., B Civ. 4.2.6; cf. 4.9.37. 34 RG 34.1. Fixed-­term tasks became the standard way for Augustus to justify monarchy (Rich 2010; 2012a), as had earlier been the case with the triumviral assignment (Lange 2009). 35 Cf. Vell. Pat. 2.61.1: torpebat oppressa dominatione Antonii civitas (‘The state languished, oppressed by the tyranny of Antonius’). For a summation of RG 1, see now Lehmann 2004; Lange 2009: 14–18. For the fear of tyranny during the early Empire, see Kneppe 1994: 165–216. 36 Dio Cass. 41.57.1-2 on Pompeius and Caesar calling each other tyrant and themselves liberators. 37 Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568; cf. 342–3 (Fasti Barb.). 38 See also Chapters 5 and 7. 39 App., B Civ. 5.130: ‘τὴν εἰρήνην ἐστασιασμένην ἐκ πολλοῦ συνέστησε κατά τε γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν’. Trans. Carter 1996. See Lange 2009: 28–38 on Sextus Pompeius and the triumviral assignment. For the monument, see Palombi 1993. 40 Or vice versa. As in the laurelled letter sent to the Senate by Octavian after his victory. For the letter, see App., B Civ. 4.51, sent to the Senate and read to the senators by the son of Cicero, as consul. Cf. Plut., Cic. 49.4. 41 Burgess 2000, referring to a written tradition of consular fasti, in this case not inscriptions; Feeney 2007; Cf. Rüpke 1995; Rüpke 2011. 42 Only from 153 did the consuls begin taking up office on the first of January. See Feeney 2007: 171; cf. Rich 2011a: 14. 43 Degrassi 1947: 159–66: Fasti Antiates Maiores. According to Cornell 1995: 401; Feeney 2007: 171 the original purpose of the fasti was not chronological reckoning. 44 For the fasti municipales, see Degrassi 1947: 167–270. 45 Rüpke 1995: 163. 46 Lange 2009: 28 and n. 45. See also Östenberg 2014: 189–91 on the fasti. 47 Alföldy 1991: 167. According to Rosenberger 1992: 53 there might be another slab. He suggests a late date, as the war was in reality declared on Cleopatra, not Antonius. The inscription of the Victory Monument together with parallel evidence shows this to be much more complicated, see below. 48 Degrassi 1947: 40–41, 44–5, 48–9, 50–51, 52–3, 54–5; cf. the Fasti Venusini (Degrassi 1947: 254–5). 49 EJ, p. 34: they claim that the entry on Actium in the Fasti Amiternini is misplaced. 50 See Lange 2011.

Notes to pp. 136–142

267

51 Lange 2009: 140–48 on the closing of the Temple of Janus. 52 Lange 2009: esp. 18–26. Dio Cassius also points to the fear of a new stage of civil strife/civil war (52.42.8). See Kearsley 2009; Levick 2010: 74–80, 164–201; Rich 2012a: esp. 48 and n. 33. 53 contra Alföldy 1991: 171. 54 Degrassi 1947: 254–5; see Rosenberger 1992: 59–61 for more evidence. 55 Rüpke 1995: 113–14. 56 Terminus post quem – see Rüpke 1995: 109–12. 57 See also Beard et al. 1998: 2.60. 58 Degrassi 1963: 134–5; Östenberg 2014: 191. 59 He was killed; Östenberg (2014: 191) suggests that he was killed, not defeated in battle, but surely this is implicit on the inscription. 60 The figure of Cleopatra also raises questions. She was declared hostis rei publicae: the war was declared on her as the ruler of Egypt. According to Vitale (2013) she also suffered a ‘damnatio memoriae’, even though he accepts that such a drastic policy was usually restricted to the Roman civil wars. Vitale may be right that Cleopatra suffered some form of damnatio, but there is very little reason to assume that the Senate in Rome or Octavian was involved. Rather, such instances were probably local incidents. As a foreign enemy there was simply no reason to suppress her name. Vitale is no doubt right that Augustus emphasized a victory over Egypt rather than over Cleopatra herself (Vitale 2013: 460), but the name Egypt also implies Cleopatra, as the ruler of the country; similarly Actium was a victory that certainly implied civil war and Antonius, as well as Cleopatra. (He omits to mention that the fact that Cleopatra is not mentioned by name in the Res Gestae (Vitale 2013: 461) is not in itself significant, as no enemy is mentioned by name. Cleopatra and Egypt offered an enemy and crucially, war had after all been declared on her. To ignore this detail is indeed curious.) Nevertheless, this was no doubt both a foreign and a civil war (contra Vitale 2013: 463). The greatest surprise, however, is that Cleopatra is left unmentioned on the inscription of the Victory Monument at Actium, as is Egypt, even though she offered the foreign enemy necessary for the granting of a triumph (see below). 61 RG 24, 25.2 and 34.1, RG 27.1 mentions Egypt as a foreign war, even if it may also have played its part in the ending of the civil war. 62 See also Lange 2009: 33–8. 63 See also Chapter 5. 64 See Murray and Petsas 1989; Zachos 2003; 2007; 2009; Lange 2009: 95–123; Pollini 2012: 191–6. 65 Rosenberger (1992: 60) remarks on the ways the war at Actium was presented in our evidence: ‘All diese Benennungen bieten zum einen den Vorteil, daß der Name des Antonius nicht benannt werden muß, so wie ohnehin der Krieg in der offiziellen

268

Notes to pp. 142–145

Darstellung nicht gegen M. Antonius, sonders gegen Kleopatra beziehungswiese gegen Ägypten geführt wurde. Zum anderen sollte der Tatbestand eines Bürgerkrieges nicht so offensichtlich erscheinen, da gemäß der offiziellen Interpretation nach dem Sieg über Sextus Pompeius die Zeit der Bürgerkriege eigentlich beendet war’. There are two basic problems with this conclusion: firstly, Cleopatra is also often conspicuously absent from the descriptions of this particular war and thus not mentioned as the enemy, and secondly, the victory over Sextus Pompeius can only been seen to have ended the civil war if a civil war was recognized to have taken place. Furthermore, Octavian/Augustus certainly emphasized the ending of civil wars, but this does not exclude that somebody else started further civil wars (RG 34.1). 66 Recently: Richardson 2012; Galinsky 2012. 67 It should however read ‘Mars and Neptune’, similar to terra marique, due to the finding of a new block: TI · NEP. See Zachos 2003: 76. See also Lange 2009: 109–23 for the inscription. 68 Dio Cass. 51.1; Prop. 4.6; Virg., Aen. 3.268ff. 69 Sulla had erected a similar tropaeum after the war against Mithridates: two tropaia at Chaeronea for Mars, Victoria and Venus (Plut., Sull. 19.5; RRC 359/1; 359/2; see Assenmaker 2013 for the archaeological remains). Similarly, Pompeius in the Pyrenees, with the names of 876 towns he had subjected (Plin., HN 3.18; 7.96 (Sertorium tacuit: it is fascinating that Pliny decides to suggest that Pompeius refrained from mentioning Sertorius, thus perhaps suggesting that this was indeed normal, or what might be expected); 37.15-16). Cf. Lucullus, in Armenia, close to the Parthian border (Plut., Luc. 36.7). 70 Plin., HN 3.136-138; CIL 5 7817; Schmuhl 2008: 174–7. The inscription on the monument is fragmented and reconstructed. The inscription was 17 metres across and 4 metres high. See also Carey 2003: 43–61. Carey (51) emphasizes that this was a catalogue of Empire. It was certainly a catalogue of enemies, as used in triumphal matters. See Chapter 3. 71 Diod. 40.4; Plin., HN 7.97-8, mentioning two inscriptions. It [Diod.] also proposes that the frontiers of the empire were extended, thus echoing ‘triumphal law’ (Val. Max. 2.8.4). 72 Spawforth 2012: 34 emphasizes Latin as the language of Roman power. This is correct, but the enemy was not Greek and the missing parallel inscription is odd if Octavian wanted the locals to understand the specific message. Hölscher 2006: 33–4 sees the monument as a symbol of universal and abstract imperialism, but then accepts it as part of the reunification of the two parts of the Empire. 73 On tropaeum, see Hölscher 2006; Schmuhl 2008. For Greek tropaia, based on a Persian model, see now Trundle 2013. For Greek monuments using naval beaks, see Hau 2013 (with useful tabulations). Both Trundle and Hau emphasize the Greek

Notes to pp. 145–149

269

ambivalence towards military victory, something more or less unknown to the Romans. 74 Schmuhl 2008: 37 is sceptical as to whether these are indeed the first Roman monuments of this kind. 75 Triumphs 120: Degrassi 1947: 82–3, 560: Q. Fabius Q. Aemiliani f. Q. n. Maximus pro co(n)s(ule) de Allobro[gibus] et rege Arvernorum Betuito X k.[---] an. DC[XXXIII]; Degrassi 1947: 82–3, 560: Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Cn. n. Ahenobarb(us) pro co(n)s(ule) de Galleis Arv[e]rneis XVI k. [---] a. D[CXXXIII]. 76 See Chapter 3. 77 App., Gall. 1.2 also suggests that Fabius Maximus killed 120,000 Gauls (cf. Gall. 12; no figures for Ahenobarbus are given, although see Oros. 5.13.2). 78 See now also Carlsen 2014. 79 RG 13; Livy 1.19; Suet., Aug. 22; Sen. (the younger), Apocol. 10.2; Clem. 1.9.4; Laudatio Turiae 2.25. 80 Beard 2007: esp. 203 seems excessively sceptical here. 81 Dio Cass. 51.19.1, 5 on Actium, Alexandria; see Chapters 5 and 7. 82 So Dart and Vervaet 2011. 83 Lange and Rich forthcoming. 84 Ant. Pal. 6.236: Actium and perhaps Nicopolis = peace; cf. RG 13: [Ianum] Quirin[um, quem cl]aussum ess[e maiores nostri voluer]unt, cum [p]er totum i[mperium po]puli Roma[ni terra marique es]set parta victoriis pax (‘Our ancestors wanted Janus Quirinus to be closed when peace had been achieved by victories on land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people’. 85 See Lange 2009: 120–23 for the Victory Monument and ‘Augustan’ ideology. The words used on the inscription of the Victory Monument at Actium do point in the direction of the triumviral assignment, as does the RG, as it focuses on the ending of the civil war (App., B Civ. 4.2.6; cf. 4.9.37). 86 Rightly so Rosenberger 1992: 61. 87 Elsewhere with Alexandria, or with both; for the use of ‘Actium’ to describe the whole war, see Lange 2009: esp. 90–93. 88 The First Punic War suggests otherwise: fourteen triumphs de Poenis (Degrassi 1947: 74–7). 89 See now Pollini 2012: 193, referring to unpublished material; Zachos 2007: 422–3 and Fig. 11; Zachos and Pavlidis 2010: 145–6. The procession on the altar included musicians, lictors, enemies, soldiers, and animals led to sacrifice, as well as barbarians on horses, with laurel leafs. As not all fragments are published, however, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the material. 90 Lange 2009: 113: also found in Rome, as part of the Temple of Apollo Sosianus, a possible, albeit uncertain Victory Monument relating to Augustus’ victories. 91 On the quadriga, see Schäfer 2008: 140–42.

270

Notes to pp. 149–153

92 Zachos 2003: 91–2; Zachos 2007: 319; Zachos 2009: esp. 299–300; cf. Pollini 2012: 194–5. 93 A further possibility was mentioned at a discussion at the British Museum in 2003: they are representations of statue heads of Antonius and Cleopatra. See Schäfer 2008: 149–50, who rightly declines this, as Dio Cass. (51.21.8) remarks that Antonius was not part of the triumphal procession. See also Beard 2007: 224–5; Östenberg 2009c: 144, n. 70; cf. Schäfer 2013: 323. 94 Dio Cass. 51.1.1-2; Suet., Aug. 96.2; Plut., Ant. 65. 95 Zachos 2003: 84–5. 96 See mainly Murray and Petsas 1989; Murray 2012: esp. 31–68. 97 Paper (forthcoming article) given at the workshop Domus Augusta e lealismo provinciale L’Augusteum di Narona, 31 May 2013, Instituto Italiano per la Storia Antica, Roma. I am very grateful to Tommaso Gnoli for his kind permission to mention his finds prior to publication. 98 Fascinatingly, a number of new rostra have been found off the Egadi Islands, from the battle of Egadi in 241. See now Gnoli 2012: 17–152, dealing with the epigraphic and historical aspects of the rams and Tusa and Royal 2012. 99 See Tusa and Royal 2012: 39–42. 100 Pollini 2012: 194, 195 on artistic licence; cf. Zachos 2007: 428; 2009: 299–300. 101 The missing servus publicus (195) can be refuted, as there is little evidence to support this idea (Beard 2007: esp. 85–92; see also Kuttner 1995: 148–52), and the absence of people in the frieze does not so much suggest artistic licence, but a focus on Octavian as triumphator. 102 Cleopatra as a representation/effigy: Plut., Ant. 86.3; Dio Cass. 51.21.8-9; Östenberg 2009c: 141–4. 103 Zachos 2009: 287–8; Östenberg 1999: 148–56. 104 Suetonius (Aug. 22) and all other sources distinctly mention three triumphs and not a multi-­day triumph, as celebrated earlier: Quinctius Flamininus (Livy 34.52.3-4; Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 553) and Aemilius Paullus (Livy 45.40; Plut., Aem. 32–34; Diod. Sic. 31.8.9-13; Degrassi 1947: 80–81, 556) both celebrated three day-­triumphs, Pompeius two days (Plin., HN 7.26.98-99; App., Mith. 116–117; Plut., Pomp. 45; Dio Cass. 37.21.2; Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566). 105 Zachos 2003: 91–2; Pollini 2012: 195. 106 Dio Cass. 51.15.5; Plut., Ant. 81.1; 87; Suet., Aug. 17.5. 107 Plut., Ant. 87; Dio Cass. 51.15.6; Braund 1984. 108 Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567; 342–3 (Fasti Barb.). 109 RG 24, 25.2 and 34.1, RG 27.1 mentions Egypt as a foreign war. 110 Reynolds 1982: document 13, 104–6; SEG 32, 1982.833: from the theatre. The inscription may date from around 20–19, where Samos gained its freedom (Millar 1977: 432), but this is an uncertain date. See Sherk 1988: 7, nr. 3.

Notes to pp. 155–156

271

Chapter 7 1 See Lacey 1996: 16–56; Sumi 2005: 35–41. On the crossing from militiae to domi, see Rüpke 1990. On imperium domi and militae, see Mommsen 1887.1: 22; Pina Polo 2011b: 4–6, 329; Lundgreen 2011: 199–201. For critique of Mommsen, see mainly Giovannini 1983, dismissing the contrast between domi and militia, focusing instead on the task of the consuls (domi militiaeque distinguished civil and military activities), and Drogula 2007, suggesting that imperium was exclusively a military power used outside the city of Rome. 2 Pis. 51–55; Att. 4.1.5. 3 Pis. 53, no triumph was granted to Piso. See also Itgenshorst 2005: 82–8 (cf. Lacey 1996: esp. 23–5), rightly emphasizing Piso’s return as an ‘Anti-­triumph’. See also Meister 2013, for a non-­triumphal reading of this and similar events. Even though Meister is clearly right to suggest that the adventus was not similar only to a triumph, he is I believe rather too rigid in his views on both the triumph and the adventus. He does not try to explain the connection between the two during the reign of Augustus nor accept the flexibility of both processions during this period. It was, in fact, although not exclusively, an Ersatztriumph. His view that the main difference between the triumph and the adventus was that the triumph was granted by peers, does in part reflect Republican practice, but during the Principate the situation was complicated by the matter of imperial honours. Furthermore, he does seem to ignore the obvious similarities between the two: crossing the pomerium and entering the city. 4 Flaig 1992 suggests that the Principate had legitimacy, whereas the individual emperors only had acceptance. On consensus, see also Ando 2000. On imperial adventus, see Lange 2012. 5 This is clearly the case for the Actian and Alexandrian triumphs (Dio Cass. 51.19.1, 5). A late source such as Dio Cassius would have worked from contemporary evidence, at least implicitly, using evidence that derived from contemporary sources. See Lange 2009: esp. 131). On the honours presented to Octavian after Actium and Alexandria, see Lange 2009: 125–57. Augustus did not necessarily decide which honours he was offered, but he could accept some, decline others. In some instances there might not have been an explicit refusal, just non-­implementation. The decreeing for Decimus Brutus after Mutina followed the same pattern. For the traditional procedure of requesting a triumph, see Dion. Hal. 3.22.3; Livy 3.63.5–11. 6 See also Benoist 2005: 42–9. 7 On geographical markers see Tuck 2008, although he misunderstands the difference between triumph and triumphal. He also underestimates Augustus’ part in initiating this trend.

272

Notes to p. 156

8 On the differences and similarities between two central Roman celebrations, the triumph and the adventus, see Lange 2012. On the triumphal character of the adventus, see Benoist 2005: 195–272. 9 On adventus, see MacCormack 1981; McCormick 1986; Millar 1977: 28–40; Halfmann 1986; Lehnen 1997; Benoist 2005: 19–101. 10 Kearsley 2009: esp. 164, suggests that RG 34.1 is not describing a constitutional detail, but a political fact. Welch 2012: 303, n. 47, claims an opposition here between Kearsley and myself, but in fact I agree that RG 34.1 does not present itself as a constitutional detail (see also Börm and Havener 2012). This does not, however, mean that what happened in 28–27 did not include the returning of triumviral powers. In 2009 I wrote as follows: ‘It is true that Octavian ceased to use the triumviral title and in RG 34.1 prefers to speak of himself, in a non-­constitutional way, as being in possession of all things through universal consent, even though potens rerum omnium surely derives from the triumvirate’ (he was in control of potens), but this still probably dates to the ousting of Antonius from the triumvirate when only one triumvir remained (Lange 2009: 59 (cf. 186); cf. Rich 2012a: 47, 57). It seems implausible that Octavian did not use the triumvirate as part of his justification, and this certainly does not rule out the possibility that this was also a statement of political fact. The words used on the inscription of the Victory Monument at Actium also suggest the triumviral assignment, as does the RG: the ending of the civil war (App., B Civ. 4.2.6; cf. 4.9). Later further tasks were added (see Lange 2009: esp. 18–38; Rich 2012a: 43–8). The triumvirate had been instituted in such a way as not to lapse until the holders resigned the office (Mommsen 1887–8: 1.696-7, 2.718-20; Fadinger 1969: 143–7; Lange 2009: 53–60; Vervaet 2009; 2010a; Levick 2010: 52–3; Rich 2012a: 46). Octavian did not use the title after Antonius was stripped of his powers in 32 (Dio Cass. 50.4.3), as he was somewhat curiously the sole legitimate holder of the office (Lange 2009: 59, 183–4). Augustus in the end evaded the question of his constitutional status in the RG (34.1), instead ascribing it to universal consent. In 27, after the ending of the civil war, which was the triumviral assignment, and restoring the constitution of the state (IIIviri rei publicae constituendae), Octavian, as promised (App., B Civ. 5.73; 132; Dio Cass. 50.7.1; Lange 2009: 60) returned his powers to SPQR (RG 34.1: in consulatu sexto et septimo, postqua[m b]el[la civil]ia exstinxeram, per consensum universorum [po]tens re[ru]m om[n]ium rem publicam ex mea potestate in senat[us populi]que R[om]ani [a]rbitrium transtuli (‘In my sixth and seventh consulship, after I had put an end to civil wars, although by everyone’s agreement I had power over everything, I transferred the state from my power into the control of the Roman Senate and people’ [trans. Cooley 2009])). Hereafter the triumviral assignment became the model for Augustus’ retaining of the powers needed to carry out the tasks or assignments presented to him by the SPQR, such as pacification. There is thus a

Notes to pp. 156–157

273

distinct continuity from triumvirate to Principate and fixed-­term tasks became the standard way for Augustus to justify monarchy. See Lange 2009; Rich 2010; 2012. 11 In Lange 2009. For the settlement as a process, contrary to Dio Cass. 53.2.6–22.5, who presented it as a single act carried out in a meeting of the Senate in 27, see Rich and Williams 1999: an aureus issued in 28 suggests that one of the elements Augustus claimed to have transferred to the control of the Senate and the Roman people (RG 34.1) were the laws (LEGES ET IVRA P R RESTITVIT). After the conference near Bononia the triumvirs left for Rome, where they entered the city on three separate days, each accompanied by one legion (App., B Civ. 4.6). These returns were almost like triumphs. 12 contra Drogula 2015: 346–50, whose out of hand dismissal of compelling arguments without an analysis of the evidence does not inspire confidence. He appears to have written a book describing his own vision of Roman conceptions of command and commanders, and not what the sources really tell us about how the Romans operated in this field. His view that the triumvirate was modelled on Rome’s other boards of triumviri is flawed in that he fails to grasp the striking particularities of the non-­annual magistracies – as regards their comminatory tempora ad incertum – and ignores the significant differences in terms of authority and empowerment. This is largely due to a blatant failure to appraise properly the evidence and arguments forwarded by Lange 2009, Vervaet 2010b (cf. Vervaet 2014c), Rich 2010, Rich 2012a (both missing from Drogula’s bibliography). He is thus correct in claiming similarities, but certainly wrong to postulate fixed terms. The triumvirate was in key respects (though obviously not all) modelled on earlier non-­annual magistracies, and ignoring the counterargument is unhelpful. 13 See Lange 2009: 26–8. 14 Feriale Cumanum (Degrassi 1963: 442); Ovid, Fast. 4.673-6; Dio Cass. 46.38.1; Cic., Phil. 14 (21 April: Senate meeting after the victory at Mutina. Phil. 14: this speech was delivered the 21 April 43 in support of a proposal to recognize the three commanders’ acclamations and to decree supplicationes, raising the latter to fifty days). 15 See Chapter 5; Lange 2013. 16 Beard 2007: 324. 17 See Pelling 1996: 17–18; Lange 2009: esp. 28–9. For the reconciliation: Livy, Per. 127; Vell. Pat. 2.76.3; 78.1; Tac., Ann. 1.10; App., B Civ. 5.60–4; Dio Cass. 48.28.3, 31.3. 18 Imp. Caesar Divi f. C. f. IIIvir r(ei) p(ublicae) c(onstituendae) ov[ans, an. DCCXIII] quod pacem cum M. Antonio fecit, [---] [Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 568; cf. 342–3 (Fasti Barberiniani)]. 19 Dio Cass. 44.4.3; Suet., Iul. 79; Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567. 20 Lange 2009: esp. 18–26.

274

Notes to pp. 157–159

21 Cic., De or. 2.195; Livy 28.9.16; Suet., Claud. 24.3; SHA, Sev. 14.7; Serv., Aen. 4.543. 22 Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569: ovans ex Sicilia. Assignment: App., B Civ. 5.65; Dio Cass. 48.28.4; Lange 2009: 29–33. This is a typical example of the blurring of civil and foreign war found during this period (Lange 2009: 79–93; 2013). Contrary to this view, see Cooley 2009: 121. App., B Civ. 5.130 mentions that Octavian proclaimed peace and the ending of the civil strife/war. He was also given a column with prows, proclaiming the ending of the civil discord on its inscription (Lange 2009: 33–8, esp. 35). 23 EJ, p. 51; App., B Civ. 5.119-122 (battle of Mylae: 5.106-8); Livy, Per. 129. 24 Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 569; Suet., Aug. 22; App., B Civ. 5.130; Dio Cass. 49.15-16. See now Luke 2014: 140–171. 25 Suet., Aug. 22; App., B Civ. 5.130; Dio Cass. 49.15-16. 26 See Humphrey and Reinhold 1984: 60–62. 27 See Rohde 1942: 1898–9. 28 Apart from perhaps Claudius Nero in 207, Livy 28.9.9-11. 29 Plut., Marc. 22; cf. Plut., Crass. 11.8; Dion. Hal. 5.47.3. 30 This claim is supported by Livy’s description of Claudius Nero’s ovation in 207 (28.9.15): . . .; uno equo per urbem verum triumphum vehi, Neronemque, etiam si pedes incedat, vel parta eo bello vel spreta eo triumpho gloria memorabilem fore (‘The truly triumphant progress through the city was on a single horse; and Nero, even if he went on foot, would be memorable, be it for the glory won in that war, or for his contempt of it in that triumph’). 31 App., B Civ. 5.126 tells the story of Lepidus, who was sent to Rome in civilian garb by Octavian, crossing the pomerium without his lictors, thereby indicating his surrender of the triumviral powers (cf. Lacey 1996: 36). 32 Dio Cass. 51.19.1–20.5. For these honours, see Lange 2009: 125–57 (Chapter 5: ‘Waiting for Caesar’). 33 See Lange 2009; 2011. Augustus’ sixth imperatorial acclamation came after Actium (Oros. 6.19.14). The fourth and fifth must be respectively for Naulochus and for the victory in Illyricum, with the second and third after Perusia and Brundisium, as mentioned above. Actium was both a foreign and a civil war: Lange 2009: esp. 60–90; 2013. 34 Östenberg 1999: esp. 156, argues that the triple triumph was a combined manifestation. Cf. Östenberg 2009c: 142–3; Gurval 1995: 33; Balbuza 1999: 277; Sumi 2005: 215. Against this view, see Lange 2009: 148–56. The separate entries of the Fasti Triumphales show her to be incorrect. Otherwise there would be one entry no matter if it is a multi-­day triumph. Augustus has three entries (Actium is missing on the Fasti Barberiniani (Degrassi 1947: 344–5, 570)). 35 Cf. Dio Cass. 53.26.5; 55.6.6; Flor. 2.33.53. 36 Suetonius (Aug. 22) and all other sources distinctly mention three triumphs and not a multi-­day triumph, as celebrated earlier: Quinctius Flamininus (Livy 34.52.3-4;

Notes to pp. 159–161

275

Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 553) and Aemilius Paullus (Livy 45.40; Plut., Aem. 32–34; Diod. Sic. 31.8.9-13; Degrassi 1947: 80–81, 556) both celebrated three day-­triumphs, Pompeius two days (Plin., HN 7.26.98-99; App., Mith. 116-117; Plut., Pomp. 45; Dio Cass. 37.21.2; Degrassi 1947: 84–5, 566). 37 Lange 2009: 155; Tarpin 2009: 129–42, 140; Vervaet 2011a. According to Linderski 1984 the oath mentioned in RG 25 was a military oath. Cf. Vervaet 2011a: 102; Kearsley 2013. Linderski 1984: 79–80 suggests that the oath was a military oath like RG 3.3 (sacramento), but the fact that the word is used in RG 3 but not in RG 25 does suggest it might not be. It seems however much more likely that Octavian brought the senators along to prove his legitimacy and then wanted to reinforce the point in the triumph. See also Lange 2009: 66, n. 69. Beard 2007: 240 rightly stresses that the order of procession was mentioned by Dio Cassius as an honour. 38 Varr., Ling. 5.165; Livy 1.19.2; Plin., HN 34.33. On the first closing of the Temple of Janus, see Rich 2003; Lange 2009: 144–8. On the pre-Augustan closing(s), see Lange 2009: 140–144; Schmitt 2010: 143–62. 39 See Degrassi 1963: 113, 395; EJ, p. 45: The Fasti Praenestini seems to suggest that Octavian closed the temple himself, Livy might agree (1.19.3), whereas Suetonius (Aug. 22) and Horace (Odes 4.15.9) cannot be taken to suggest that he performed the action in person. Perhaps the implication in Livy, Suetonius and Horace is that the achievements of Octavian closed the temple. 40 In 211 Marcellus was not given a triumph, partly because he did not return with his army, as the war was not ended (Livy 26.21.2-4). This later changed, as seen from the cases of Furius Purpureo in 200, Minucius Thermus in 195 and Acilius Glabrio in 190, but reappears in 185 with the case of Manlius Acidinus. See Richardson 1975: 61–2; Beard 2007: 206–8. This requirement is not part of the lists of Val. Max. 2.8 and Gell. 5.6. About the triumph as a Kriegsbeendigungsritus, see Rüpke 1990: 225–6; cf. Westall 2014. The triumph and the booty might be symbols of the ending of war (so Flaig 2004: 38), but this is clearly not always the case. 41 Kähler 1939: 407 is uncertain it was ever erected. We cannot know for certain, but there seems little or no reason to accept this view. We might speculate for a similar position close to the harbour as the Arch of Trajan at Ancona. 42 To complicate matters in terms of identification, a denarius showing a single arch with the legend IMP CAESAR on the architrave, surmounted by a quadriga (RIC 12 267 = BMCR 624), most likely dated after Actium, may equally show the arch at Brundisium (see Pollini 2012: 82, n. 85), or alternatively, a generic Actian arch. 43 Nedergaard 1988: 225 suggests that the two ‘shields’ visible on the arch are imagines clipeatae. May this be an unknown honour connected to Actium? 44 RG 20.5; Suet., Aug. 30; Dio Cass. 53.22.1-2. 45 Calvisius Sabinus and Messalla Corvinus: see Rich 1990: 155; Cooley 2009: 195–6. 46 ‘Fast type’, see Epilogue.

276

Notes to pp. 161–163

47 Kähler 1939: 381; Rich 1998: 112–13; BMCR 432 (aureus); 434 (denarius); cf. RIC 12, nr. 140–145. According to Dio Cassius (53.22) both arches were adorned with statues of Augustus. 48 And with Rich 1998: 113, we can assume that the Actian arch also would have had similar decorations, including rams, as it would have been odd to omit them in Rome itself, when they were included on the Falminian arches. 49 Laurence 1999: 42–5 talks of commemorative arches (45). This is fair enough, but they were certainly also triumph-­like. 50 Coarelli 1992: 363–414. See also Haselberger 2002, s.v. Porta Carmentalis; Porta Triumphalis; Bastien 2007: 131–2; Östenberg 2010: 305. Sobocinski (2009) places the Elephant Arch of Domitian and the Temple of Fortuna Redux on the Campus Martius, not, as does Coarelli, on the Forum Boarium. See also Kleiner 1989: 201–4. 51 Wiseman 2008; Suet., Aug. 100.2; Dio Cass. 56.42.1; cf. Tac., Ann. 1.8.3. 52 Another pressing matter is where they would have encamped, especially whenever a decision-­making process was delayed. 53 Coarelli 1992: 13–59, 234–44, 104–5 (map); Haselberger 2002: 174–6, at 174 (accepting Coarelli’s reconstruction with some caution); Bernard 2012: 24, map on p. 36. 54 Coarelli 1992: 36; Bernard 2012: 25. 55 Convenient tabulation at Bonnefond-Coudry 1989: 144–5. 56 Livy 26.21.1-4; Val. Max. 2.8.5; Plut., Marc. 21–22; De vir Ill. 45.6. 57 MRR 1, 344. 58 In 62 Pompeius decided to disband his army at Brundisium, to avoid fear (of civil war), to everybody’s amazement. He celebrated a triumph, without the presence of the soldiers: Dio Cass. 37.20.6; Vell. Pat. 2.40.2-3; Plut., Pomp. 43; App., Mith. 116. 59 Livy 45.35.3; Plut., Aem. 30.2; cf. Cic., Fin. 5.70; Degrassi 1947: 80–81, 556 for the triumph. 60 Purcell 1996: 269. The Navalia existed at least from 338 (Livy 8.14.12), was rebuilt or extended in 179 (Livy 40.51.6), and again in around 102 by M. Antonius (Cic., De or. 1.62). For more evidence, see Blackman and Rankov 2014: 31–2. According to Coarelli 1996b: 340, the Navalia had fallen out of use by the first century, but this is contradicted by Livy (3.26.8) and Pliny (HN 36.40), both using Navalia as an unqualified point of reference during their own period (Haselberger 2002: 180). See also Procopius on the ship of Aeneas (Goth. 4.22.7-16; cf. Plut., Cato Min. 39; Vell. Pat. 2.45. Verg., Aen. 8.31-67 on Aeneas’ trip up the Tiber). Blackman 2008 points to a denarius of Pelikanus from 45, perhaps showing the Navalia (RRC 373/1; cf. L. Rubirus Dossenus 87 BCE: RRC 348/6; cf. Hohlfelder 2008: 23). See also Blackman and Rankov 2014: 36–7. There is every reason to suspect that the Navalia in Rome was similar to Athens and Carthage, with shipsheds. This was essential for maintaining an operational fleet. 61 Livy 29.10.4-8, the arrival of Magna Mater; for the journey up the Tiber, see Görler 1993.

Notes to pp. 163–165

277

62 So Briscoe 2012: 724. The Royal British pageantries, although of course much later in time, may convey some of the feeling of an ancient naval spectacle. Doran 2012 explores the history of the Thames as a stage for Royal power, celebration and symbolism. It provides a thematic overview of major events and key individuals from the Tudor age onwards. 63 On the Campus Martius and its water activities, also visible in temples, see PietiläCastrén 1987: 47. 64 Livy 3.26.8; Plin., HN 18.20. 65 See now mainly Cozza and Tucci 2006, who reject the Horrea Cornelia and instead suggest that the building was a series of fifty shipsheds (cf. Coarelli 2007), similar to those being excavated at Piraeus (Lovén and Schaldemose 2012). Contra Arata and Felici 2011, who claim the building was a place for the transit of goods. This has now been convincingly refuted by Tucci 2012, as the rear wall off the building seems to lack any entrances/openings, and at the same time he convincingly refutes their epigraphical doubts. For a critical take on the matter, see now Blackman and Rankov 2014: 39–41 (Rankov, ‘Roman Shipshed’, 30–54; cf. 102–23 (Rankov, ‘Slipping and Launching’)), suggesting that it may have been very difficult to launch long warships across the stream. Contrary to this the Navalia on the Campus Martius, upstream of the Theatre of Marcellus, will have been more or less parallel with the stream. Even though this is an important technicality, it should certainly not make us discount the possibility out of hand. 66 On Augustus’ travels from 27 onwards, see tabulation in Halfmann 1986: 157–62. 67 On this view on Augustus’ establishment of the Principate, stressing continuation from the triumvirate to the Principate, as Lange 2009: esp. 18–38, 181–8, 198, see Rich 2010; Rich 2012a. Syme (1939: 3, n. 2) famously wrote: ‘The Triumviral period is tangled, chaotic and hideous. To take it all for granted, however, and make a clean beginning after Actium, or in 27 is an offence against the nature of history and is the prime cause of many pertinacious delusions about the Principate of Augustus.’ 68 Dio Cass. 54.11.1-5; Hor., Epist. 1.12.25-26. See Rich 2009: 152. 69 Dio Cass. 53.25.5-6; Rich 2009: 152 suggests that Dio Cassius wanted Augustus, his ideal emperor, as a model for the policy of non-­expansion, a policy Dio Cassius himself supported. 70 See for example P. Licinius Crassus, cos. 171 BCE: Livy 42.49.1-7; his return: 42.49.6; cf. 45.39.11. 71 See Rich 1990: 219. 72 Regarding the laurel, see Plin., HN 15.133–5; Festus 104L; Bergmann 2010: 37–108 (the book is at times rather rigid in its approach towards triumph and triumph-­like and does ignore the great flexibility of the triumphal ritual). 73 Dio Cass. 53.13.3, purporting to describe an enactment of 27, but this may be wrong. See Rich 1990: 144; cf. Dio Cass. 55.10.2; Suet., Aug. 29.2 on commanders starting from the Temple of Mars Ultor, i.e. after 2 BCE.

278

Notes to pp. 165–166

74 RG 4.1; Dio Cass. 54.25.4 on 14 BCE, 55.5.1 on 8 BCE; Livy 45.39.10-12 for Republican sacrifice. 75 Dio Cass. 53.26.5; Flor. 2.33.53. 76 Dio Cass. 53.26.5; Oros. 6.21.11; Rich 1990: 162–3. 77 Dio Cass. 54.10.4. Contrary to the views presented here Koortbojian 2010: esp. 260–71, replaces ‘triumph-­like’ with ‘anti-­triumphal’. I find this rather unconvincing as the triumph was never meant to disappear. Regarding the Parthian honours, he also seems to forget that firstly, Augustus stopped fighting in person by 25, and secondly, even if the Parthian victory was not a military victory, the arch (Actium-Parthian Arch) was a potent victory monument and related to honours after triumphs, as in 36 and 31. Misrepresenting Florus 2.34 does not help. Even if the entry talks of Rome’s achievements in war and peace, expansion is the aim (1.1.1; cf. 1.1.7: peace throughout the world, meaning through Roman expansion). This comes close to the information in RG 13. The post-Augustan period is described as one of inertia Caesarum, although this inactivity of the emperors (in war) changed with Trajan (1.1.8). Triumph and triumph-­like rituals and monuments certainly never disappeared. 78 See Rich 1998: 77. 79 See also Lacey 1996: 47; Meister 2013: esp. 51–3. 80 RG 11: annual sacrifice on 12 October, to be conducted by priests and even the Vestal Virgins. 81 On the problems regarding this delegation, see Rich 1990: 186–7; Cooley 2009: 153–4. 82 On the Temple of Honos and Virtus and Marcellus, see McDonnell 2006b: esp. 206–40. The temple was vowed in 222 at Clastidium (Livy 27.25.7-10). Later Marcellus renewed the vow after his capture of Syracuse (Livy 27.25.7-10; 29.11.13; Val. Max. 1.1.8). Marcellus probably sought to usurp the monument of the Fabii Maximi (218–19: Q Fabius Maximus’s Temple to Honos 233 BCE. See PietiläCastrén 1987: 48–51 on Fabius’ temple). The conflict may relate to the rivalry between the two men (McDonnell 2006b: 218–27). 83 See Brennan 1996; Rosenberger 2009. 84 Livy 26.21.6; Plut., Marc. 22.1; De vir Ill. 45.6; Val. Max. 2.8.5. 85 On the importance of the Temple of Honos et Virtus, see Cadario 2005: 150–53. On the alleged corruption of the traditional Roman values, see Polyb. 9.10.5-6; Livy 25.40.2-3; Plut., Marc. 21.3-5. For the contemporary political fight between Marcellus and the Senate, see Cadario 2005: 149–54; McDonnell 2006a: 2006b. 86 On Marcellus and art, see Cadario 2005; Cadario 2014. 87 Weinstock 1971: esp. 326, is wrong to see Caesar’s ovation as an innovation and thus to overlook Marcellus as a possible precedent. Unfortunately, the Fasti Triumphales entry for Marcellus is lost. Degrassi (1947: 551) assumes that there were two entries for Marcellus under that year, one for the Alban Mount triumph and one for the ovation, and the fact that other Alban Mount triumphs were recorded on the Fasti

Notes to pp. 166–168

279

may support this. Furthermore, the Alban Mount triumph was on one day, the ovation on the next (Livy 26.21.6: pridie quam urbem ovans iniret in monte Albano triumphavit (‘On the day before his entry into the city he triumphed on the Alban Mount’). However, the combined ceremony of Caesar in 44 (Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567) suggests that a single entry which included the words ovans ex monte Albano may be more likely. 88 According to Syme 1989: 115 the Temple of Janus was opened on Augustus’ departure for the East. As pointed out by Rich (1998: 73; 2003: 355–6) it would then surely have been closed on his return, and this would not have gone unreported in the evidence. On the day of his departure Augustus rededicated the temple to Quirinus on the Quirinal hill (Dio Cass. 54.19.4; cf. Ovid, Fast. 6.795-6; Degrassi 1963: 411–12, 475). 89 See Rich 2003: 355–6; Cooley 2009: 160. 90 See Rich 2003: 355–6. 91 Against this, see Syme 1984. 92 See Rich 2009: 157–61. 93 Dio Cass. 54.25.3-4; cf. Suet., Aug. 53.2. 94 RG 12.2; Degrassi 1963: 404–5, 476. 95 Dio Cass. 54.27.1; EJ, 36; ILS 88. 96 Torelli 1982: 33 rightly suggests that the Ara Pacis was a triumphal monument for a refused triumph. 97 RG 12.2: Aram [Pacis A]u[g]ust[ae senatus pro] redi[t]u meo consa[c]randam [censuit] ad campum [Martium]. 98 contra Mayer 2010: esp. 120, 123, who uses a rather too simplistic ‘Republican’ and ‘human’ versus ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘god’ approach. Luke suggests that the spectacle of arrival and departure, including the triumph, was superimposed with personal political theologies. He highlights the flexibility of triumphal matters and the developments of the adventus. See also Lange 2012. He may however have overstated the argument. He submits that the Res Gestae should be read as a celebratory adventus (2014: 14, 175–260: ‘The third part of this book argues that Augustus constructed the first thirteen chapters of the Res Gestae (RG) as an extended arrival narrative’). I must agree with Smith that this is unconvincing (Smith 2015: XXIV-XXV for criticism). In a section entitled ‘Augustus as the New Numa’, Luke (2014: 242–60) underestimates the strong connection between (civil) war and peace (see however 258–9). Not so however during the reign of Augustus, where peace is the result of victory (RG 13: parta victoriis pax; heading of the Res Gestae). As I hope this book will show, the idea that Augustus wanted to distance himself from the civil war past (so Luke 2014: 243) is too simplistic. As for a connection between the Ara Pacis and chapters 11–13 of the Res Gestae, see Lange 2009: esp. 6–7.

280

Notes to pp. 168–169

99 Suet., Aug. 100.4 mentions that the structure was built in his sixth consulship: sexto suo consulatu extruxerat, but it could not have been built in 28. Cf. Dio Cass. 53.30.5. Looking at the context of the building, 32 is by far the most likely date, as a counterbalance to the will of Antonius (Kraft 1967). See Dio Cass. 50.3.5; Plut., Ant. 58.4. Furthermore, Octavian did choose to finish the tomb of Antonius and Cleopatra in Alexandria (Suet., Aug. 17.4). 100 See Lange 2009: 7. 101 Lange 2009: 7, 200–202. 102 Virgili and Battistelli 1999; Virgili 2006; Patterson 2010: 221. For a critical voice against the view that the building faced north throughout all its phases, see Ziolkowski 2009. He is too quick, however, to discount a possible connection between the Pantheon of Agrippa and the Mausoleum of Augustus (esp. 35). Furthermore, even if the intention was always to call it Pantheon, the implication was ruler worship, as can be deduced from the proposal to dedicate a statue of Augustus in the temple (53.27.2-3). This was however dismissed (36–7, partly pointing to Republican sentiments, which is too simple an argument, as there was a cult to Augustus in Italy). As for Dio Cassius, it was important for him to stress Augustus’ decline of this particular worship, in accordance with his ideal emperor model (cf. Maecenas’ Speech). The fact that he mentions the story makes it more credible. But to dismiss Dio Cassius as spreading gossip, when he is in fact against ruler worships, is somewhat extreme. 103 See Halfmann 1986: 159, 162; Rich 1999: esp. 547–52. 104 Dio Cass. 54.36.2-4; ILS 92; Halfmann 1986: 159; Rich 1999: 549. 105 Twelfth salutation: CIL 3.3117; 6.701-2 (= ILS 91), 10.8035; RIC 12 176–84, 186–97. Thirteenth: CIL 5.7231 (= ILS 94); 6.457 (= ILS 93); 10.931. See Rich 1999: 548–9. 106 Dio Cass. 54.31.4; 33.5; Suet., Tib. 9.2; Claud. 1.3; Boyce 1942. 107 Warfare in Africa early in Augustus’ reign produced two proconsular triumphs: L. Sempronius Atratinus and L. Cornelius Balbus triumphed in 22 and 19 respectively. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Balbus proved to be the last commander to triumph outside the imperial family. Nothing suggests a deliberate policy on the matter. See Chapter 4. 108 ILS 95; Dio Cass. 55.8.1-3. See Kuttner 1995: 143–54, also suggesting that Tiberius initiated later practices and reused the chariot of Augustus from the triple triumph. 109 Dio Cass. 55.2.2; Tac., Ann. 3.5.1; Sumi 2005: 250. 110 Dio Cass. 55.6.4-5. See Rich 1999: 551. For the honours of Drusus and for the general development in 12–8, see Rich 1999; Kehne 1998. 111 Nep., Att. 20.3: ex quo accidit, cum aedis Iovis Feretrii in Capitolio, ab Romulo constituta, vetustate atque incuria detecta prolaberetur, ut Attici admonitu Caesar eam reficiendam curare (‘It was owing to that intimacy that when the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius, which had been built on the Capitoline by Romulus, through

Notes to pp. 169–172

281

lapse of time and neglect was without a roof, and was falling into ruin, Caesar was led by Atticus’ advice to have it restored’); RG 19.2; Livy 4.20.7. 112 Sen., De consolatione ad Marciam 3.1. For a possible identification of Drusus as the male figure riding a triumphal chariot on the so-­called apotheosis panel of the Belvedere Altar, see now Buxton 2014. In 8 CE Augustus was once more forced to journey, this time to Ariminum because of the Panninian Revolt (Dio Cass. 55.34.3). 113 Dio Cass. 55.2.3; Suet., Claud. 1.3; Rich 1990: 219. 114 Suet., Claud. 1.3: praeterea senatus inter alia complura marmoreum arcum cum tropaeis via Appia decrevit et Germanici cognomen ipsi posterisque eius (‘The Senate, in addition to many other honours, voted him a marble arch adorned with trophies on the Appian Way, and the agnomen Germanicus for himself [Nero Drusus Germanicus] and his descendants’). For the name Germanicus, see Kneissl 1969: 27–33. This is the first time ever a cognomen, related to the victory of Drusus in Germany, as a title was conferred by the Senate as an honour (Florus 2.30.28). 115 According to Kontokosta 2013: 31 this arch is a type of family monument. This as it may be, it is clearly connected to victory and triumph. 116 For more examples of similar arches, see Kähler 1939. 117 He was due to celebrate a combined Alban Mount triumph and ovation in 9, as part of his return to Rome from his German command (Dio Cass. 55.2.5). 118 Suet., Aug. 100.2; Tac., Ann. 1.8.3; Dio Cass. 56.42.1. 119 Suet., Aug. 101.4; Dio Cass. 56.33.1. 120 Dio Cass. 56.34.1-3; Smith 1988. 121 Dion. Hal. 2.70.1-5; Beard et al. 1998/1: 43; Cooley 2009: 147. 122 Even according to Taylor 1931: 236, this placed him on a par with the gods. 123 Cf. Lange 2009: 146–7. 124 On profectio and adventus in Roman art, see Hölscher 1967: 48–67.

Epilogue 1 See Trunk 2002: catalogue nr. 57–8; Schäfer 2002. 2 Trunk 2002: 21; Trunk 2010: 25. 3 ‘Not’ fragmented; the fragmented pieces never went to Spain; on their history, see Strocka 1964; Prückner 1980; Trunk 2002. 4 Schäfer 2013: 321–3; cf. Schäfer 2008. Thomas Schäfer is currently working on an extensive study of the relief. 5 Schäfer convincingly has placed the fragment of Apollo together with the battle scene. 6 The female figures on 7 are a mystery: Szidat (1997: 19) talks of personifications, but this does not seem to be correct, as they are too similar. Koeppel (1999: 597)

282

Notes to pp. 172–173

suggests that they are male figures because of the shields. This does however seem rather implausible. 7 On exuviae, see Madigan 2013: 83–101. Pliny, HN 7.145 refers to the bearing of the insignia of Jupiter in triumph, calling them exuviae. For the processional wagon with the attributes of the gods, see Festus 500 L; Cic., 2. Verr. 1.154; Suet., Vesp. 5.7 (Jupiter). See also Dion. Hal. 7.72; Dio Cass. 47.40.4; 50.8.2; 66.1.3; Val. Max. 1.1.16. For an aedes thensarum on the Capitol, see ILS 1987. On tensae, see mainly Szidat 1997; Spannagel 1999: 87; Trunk 2002; 2010; Schäfer 2002; 2013. 8 Schäfer 2002; 2013. Trunk 2010 remarks on the unique depiction of the Actium battle. See Lange 2011 on the battle. 9 Trunk 2010: 39–41; see below. 10 Szidat 1997: 8–9, 20–21, cf. 16–18, suggesting that the panels were not all made at the same time. 11 Schäfer 2002: esp. 47–8; 2013: 321 for the date, based on style (cf. Koeppel 1999). The relief has been thoroughly cleaned in modern times, making this a difficult question (see Trunk 2002). There is a decorative use of drilling in the tympanon of the tensa (as in the cuirassed statues of Claudian-Neronian age; see Cadario 2004: 184, 249) and a deeper use of it in the manes of the horses (not Tiberian). The tails of the horses are very natural and the flowers in the tympanon of the tensa are Tiberian/Claudian. This can be compared with the relief depicting the Praetorian Guard, usually assigned to the Arcus of Claudius, from the Louvre (MA 1079–INV. LL 398). The flowers of the tensa are very similar to the flowers on the shields of the soldiers and the same decorative use of the drill is also used. The ancient heads from Budapest are clearly Claudian according to Hölscher 1994: 100 (only commenting on the Budapest pieces). Trunk (2002: 251–2; 2010: esp. 36–41) suggests an Augustan date (and accepts that the empty wagon is a tensa), but he does not take the two Budapest panels into account. Trunk (2010: 41) even suggests that the Budapest fragments did not belong to the same monument. This is most likely wrong, but it is his main reason for dismissing a Claudian date. When writing in 2002, the processional wagon panel was thought lost. Cf. Szidat 1997. 12 Schäfer 2002: 49; Murray 2012: 247; cf. Hölscher 1994: 100. 13 Just before his death Augustus went to Neapolis for quinquennial games (Italica Romaia Sebasta Isolympia), held in his honour (Dio Cass. 55.10.9; 56.29.2; Vell. Pat. 2.123.1). The fragmented inscription for the games found at Olympia attest that there were offerings to the gods, including ‘to Augustus Caesar’ and a temple of Augustus was involved (see Gradel 2002: 81–2). See Taylor 1931: 214–15: she dismisses the games, claiming that they do not show that there was a cult to the deus praesens in Italy, basing her assertion on Dio Cassius’ statements on emperor worship. He claims that there was no worship of the living emperor in Italy and Rome (51.20.8); but this is, of course, wrong, as this cult is attested throughout Italy

Notes to pp. 173–175

283

(Gradel 2002: esp. 80–91; Koortbojian 2013: esp. 165–70). Taylor emphasizes the Greek nature of the city (cf. Wallace-Hadrill 2010: 38–70 (on dress), 278–9: this does not betray Augustus as a Roman, but rather defines it). Even so, Augustus was present at the games just before his death in 14 CE (Dio Cass. 56.29.2, Vell. Pat. 2.123.1 and Suet., Aug. 98.5) and importantly, the citizens of Neapolis were Roman citizens (Cic., Balb. 21; Dart 2014: 177). Of importance is also the story of the crew of the corn ship from Alexandria at Puteoli, greeting Augustus in a religious manner (Suet., Aug. 98.2; Lange 2009: 191; Wardle 2012: 320). What Suetonius shows is that Augustus received worship as a god from non-Romans (rightly so Wardle 2012: 322), as well as Romans (Aug. 98.5; contra Aug. 52?). The exception, according to Suetonius, was Rome. 14 She suggests that they derive from the Arch of Naulochus (Szidat 1997: 89–90), but there is no evidence that this was ever built. See also Trunk 2002: 250 and n. 581. As rightly pointed out by Koeppel 1999: 597, the quality of the workmanship cannot be accepted as an argument. 15 Or should we even assume that the Claudian relief originated in Rome, from an altar similar to the Ara Pacis. But if it was a great public altar, the panels seem too small for a precinct wall and too large for the altar itself? See Osgood 2011: esp. 94–5 for Claudian altars. Cf, Koeppel 1999: 598. 16 Cf. Beard 2014. 17 Lange 2009. 18 Verg., Aen. 8.704–8, for the battle narrative on the Shield of Aeneas. 19 Strocka 1964: 826, only working from the Budapest fragments, thus offering a rather different reconstruction. 20 Strabo 7.7.6; Lange 2009: 95–123, esp. 117–20. 21 See Chapter 6. 22 Most of the heads of the ‘Spanish’ relief are reconstructed (Schäfer 2002: 37–41, 50, also looking at the general restoration of the relief; 2008: esp. 139, 149; Trunk 2002: esp. 66–9; Trunk 2010: 33–4). The Nicopolis head absurdly and embarrassingly still remains unpublished. 23 See Szidat 1997: 11; Trunk 2002: 253; cf. McDonnell 2011. A slave is holding the reins of the quadriga on the Victory Monument at Actium. See Zachos and Pavlidis 2010: 146. 24 corona aurea, see Bergmann 2010: 40–94; alternatively, and more likely, this is a corona civica. See Bergmann 2010: 135–205. 25 Standing, not sitting down as on the Ara Pacis (cf. RIC 12: p. 157 for reverse types: Roma in military dress, seated on cuirass, with shield), but with a shield and warlike outfit. 26 See also Schäfer 2013: 323. 27 See Chapter 7. Suet., Aug. 100.2; Tac., Ann. 1.8.3; Dio Cass. 56.42.1. This idea was not unknown in Claudian times: RIC 12 Nero 4: an aureus from 54 CE shows on the

284

Notes to pp. 175–179

obverse the head of Claudius, with the legend Divine Claudius, on the reverse a triumphal chariot. It is inscribed EX SC. The chariot is surmounted it seems by four miniature horses, flanked by Victories. The chariot looks like a ‘slow’ triumphal type. See below. 28 We must assume that senators would have been shown as part of the triumphal panel. We know from the Res Gestae that he was followed by 700 senators in all, including the current magistrates, according to who had served on the respective campaigns (RG 25.3). Dio Cassius (51.21.9) mentions that the magistrates did not take the traditional position at the front, as they had been fighting with Octavian. This might suggest a missing part of the relief behind the triumphator. The relief is not historically accurate, but importantly, in a triumphal procession the Senate would hardly have been missing in numbers. 29 Trunk 2010: 37. 30 Verg., Aen. 843-45; Varro, Rust. 2.4.18; Ling. 5.144; Dion. Hal. 1.56; see also Zanker 1987: 204–13, including two famous wall paintings from Pompeii, with a similar iconography to the tensa. See also a sestertius of Caligula, showing the Temple of Divus Augustus. The pediment is decorated with a sacrificial scene, including a triumphal quadriga and Victories, and importantly, statues of Romulus with spolia opima and Aeneas (RIC I2 36; BMCRE 41). 31 contra Rehak 2006: 115–20. 32 As a biga. Strocka 2009: 49–50, n. 97 (see below); RG 35.1. 33 For a different view, suggesting a tensa, see Liegle 1991: esp. 323–5. His suggestions regarding the form of the triumphal chariot and the processional wagon are however unsubstantiated and unlikely. 34 BMCR Tiberius 113 clearly shows a footboard, suggesting a triumphal chariot; cf. Rich 1998: Fig. 12; the legend is DIVI AVG. 35 See mainly Res Gestae 24; cf. Suet., Aug. 52; Dio Cass. 53.22.3. The statues mentioned in RG 24, including a chariot (quadriga), were taken down it appears because they were associated with emperor worship. Suetonius clearly imitates the Res Gestae in what he writes. 36 348/1: decorated with thunderbolt, above the chariot Victoria with wreath; 348/2: similar, but the side panel of chariot decorated with eagle and thunderbolt; 348/3: Victoria (?) and miniature horses. 37 See mainly Szidat 1997: 61–83. 38 See Chapter 7. 39 See Taylor 1931. See also Pollini 2012: 133–61. 40 By the time of Dio Cassius the word Divus was used for dead emperors, deified by the Senate. See Gradel 2002: 63–4. 41 Serv., Aen. 8.721; Plin., HN 36.39; Smith 1988: the Sebasteion of Aphrodisias, reproducing an Augustan monument from Rome.

Notes to pp. 179–183

285

42 Dio Cass. 56.42.2; cf. Suet., Aug. 100.2; Tac., Ann. 1.8.3 on the funeral. 43 Rich 1998: 115–19. 44 Rich 1998: 119. 45 Dio Cass. 44.4.2; Weinstock 1971: 57, 273–4; Rich 1998: 119. This honour must have been part of the same batch of honours. 46 Rich 1998: 121–2; RG 35.1; RIC 12 258–259 = BMCR 590–591. 47 Dio Cass. 43.14.6; Weinstock 1971: 54–9; Rich 1998: 120. 48 Dio Cass. 49.186-7, including victory games in Rome in honour of Antonius’ killing of Sextus Pompeius; Weinstock 1971: 56 suggests that Octavian had himself already received this honour after Naulochus. 49 Weinstock 1971: 56, pl. 5, 12–14. See also Holliday 2002: 22–62, on images of triumph in general. 50 Already in 19/18 Augustus had been honoured as pater or parens (See Cooley 2009: 273) See RIC 12 96–101: PARENTI(I) CONS(ERVATORI) SVO. The triumphal image accompanying this legend points to military victory and triumph, in this case most likely referring back to the saving of the country from Antonius and Cleopatra. Interestingly, the imperial divi were acknowledged as patres (see Koortbojian 2013: 29). 51 Strocka 2009. Luke picks up on Strocka’s argument that the biga from St Mark’s, now in the Vatican, was the quadriga from the Forum of Augustus, empty, as a sign of apotheosis (Luke 2014: 266–78). This is entirely unfounded and unconvincing (cf. Smith 2015: XXV). His idea that the quadriga was empty because it ‘underlined the end of his participation in the triumph’ rests on two assumptions: that this chariot was empty, and that the biga from the Vatican is the quadriga from the Forum of Augustus. Both are at best highly problematic. 52 Some statues were also cuirassed. See Rinaldi Tufi 1981. Dio Cass. 55.10.3: anyone deserving triumphal honours received a bronze statue. 53 Prop. 4.11.11-12; Flor. 2.13.89. 54 For currum (RG 4.1), see Weinstock 1971: esp. 54–9; Beard 2007: 124–8, 223. 55 I accept this premise, I am however very uncertain that it was empty. 56 Suet., Aug. 29.2; Dio Cass. 55.10.3. 57 See Koortbojian 2013: 96. 58 Kuttner 1995: 147. 59 Kuttner 1995: 147–8, and illustration 10, and see coin in La Rocca 2013: 183; RIC 12 98. 60 For catalogues of relevant triumphal chariots, see Schäfer 2008: 140–42. 61 Rich 1998: 115–25, with a catalogue of relevant coins. 62 Guidetti 2009: 241. 63 Dio Cass. 44.6.3, cf. 1; cf. Cic., Att. 15.3; Suet., Iul. 76.1; Swan 2004: 298. 64 So Beard 2014.

286

Notes to pp. 183–187

65 Suet., Claud. 11.2. RG 19.1 mentions the pulvinar at the Circus Maximus. This was used for displaying the statues of gods and their ritual objects (exuviae deorum), brought in procession to the games in processional wagons (tensae). From Augustus onwards it served as the imperial box, placing Augustus and his family side by side with the gods (Suet., Aug. 45.1). 66 Cf. 75.5.5 on the funeral of Pertinax; Hdn. 4.2.11 on Septimius Severus. See Gradel 2002: 291–5; Swan 2004: 343–4. 67 For the spolia opima and tropaeum, see Schmuhl 2008: 46–61. 68 Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 571, cf. 344–5 (Fasti Barb.); Dio Cass. 51.24.4. See Rich 1996, also with evidence on the ritual and the modern debate on this matter, refuting Dessau 1906; Syme 1939: 308–9. 69 See Geiger 2008: 137–8. 70 Suet., Aug. 7.2; Dio Cass. 53.16.5-7; Flor. 2.34.66. 71 RG 19.2; Livy. 4.20.7: ipsius templi auctor; Nep., Att. 20.2-3; Rich 1996: esp. 112–16. 72 Declined, see Rich 1998. Instead the Temple of Mars Ultor on the Forum of Augustus was built and dedicated in 2, as the new centre for victory and triumph. 73 Rich 1999: 546. 74 So already Schäfer 2002: 45–6. 75 See Goette 1988: esp. 406–7 (Cancelleria relief). 76 Trunk 2010: 37 suggests Mars or Octavian, or statues of one of the two. 77 See mainly Cadario 2004; cf. Fejfer 2008: esp. 207–13. The Belletti Relief, Rome, shows a military commander in cuirass, holding a ship’s stern (this is slightly odd, but Actium and Alexandria are often portrayed as one war. See Lange 2009: esp. 90–93), with the personification of Egypt (or Africa, or perhaps even better, Alexandria) in front of him, mourning. The commander is probably Augustus. See Hölscher 2009: at 324. Importantly, the commander/admiral is shown in his combat dress. 78 Cf. Szidat 1997: 21. There is also the question of the fat neck of Pompeius. See Trunk 2009. Looking at the relief, however, that seems rather inconclusive, as the head including the neck seem to be modern additions. Having said that, the type resembles that of coins of Sextus Pompeius (RRC 511/3: Reverse, male figure with aplustre in hand, foot on rostrum. But again, this or a similar type is then used by Octavian (RIC 12 Aug. 256; Zanker 1987: 48–50), showing Octavian/Neptune on the reverse with aplustre in hand and foot on a globe, not a prow (reference to Sextus Pompeius or Actium, depending on how the CAESAR DIVI F coins are dated), and in a coin of Pella, with a cuirassed Octavian standing with his foot on a rostrum (Neptune is never cuirassed) (RPC 1548; Cadario 2004: 114, Fig. 15.7). 79 Lange 2009: esp. 118. 80 See Chapter 6. 81 Ancestor masks: Dio Cass. 56.34.2-3; see also Suet., Aug. 100; Dio Cass. 56.42.1-4. 82 Lange 2009: 95–123.

Notes to p. 187

287

83 See Trunk 2002: 251. 84 Some of the rams are modern additions, especially the animal-­headed rams (Murray 2012: 247–8 and n. 1). The panel appears slightly less classicistic and more Hellenistic than the rest of the frieze including the sinking ship (pathos?). See Hölscher 2004. For the ships at Actium, see Lange 2011; Trunk 2010: 29–30. See Dio Cass. 50.23 for the use of towers on Antonius’ ships. Cf. App., B Civ. 5.107; Serv., Aen. 8.693 on Naulochus. A similar tower is seen on the Praeneste relief (featuring a crocodile. See Morrison 1996: 229–30). This does not however suggest an Augustan date for the Spanish relief. 85 Cf. Trunk 2002; 2010 (esp. 29–30, 34) for civil war action. 86 So also Schäfer 2013: 322. The front part of the animal seems to be a modern addition, whereas the rest of it is ancient. What else should it be if not a centaur? A mosaic from Algeria (Cirta/Constantine) shows a bull in a very similar position and pose. The tails however are different, and the Actium panel animal is, at least partly, a horse. The African mosaic may be Augustan. See Hornig 2001. Importantly, the animal is most easily explained as a matter of personalizing ships, which again may point to a centaur and Antonius. On the African mosaic the bull and a visible swan may point to Venus/Apollo and Octavian. See Hornig 2001: 120. This is thus similar to the centaur = Antonius. For a different reading of the mosaic, but also referring to Propertius 4.6, see Picard 1980. 87 See Barton 1995, with references. 88 See Tusa and Royal 2012 convincingly refuting the common misconception about ancient warships that they could not sink. 89 There are a number of funerary reliefs with naval battles found in Campania. See Felletti 1977: 219–29; cf. Morrison 1996: 177–254 on ship iconography. See also Kellum 2010, although oddly ignoring the funerary reliefs from Campania. She suggests that Poplicola’s famous funerary monument in Ostia shows Actium: ‘Although Poplicola may never have seen military service [CHL: the inscription does not mention it] – all of his offices were municipal – he is honoured on his tomb as a loyal local partisan of Octavian/Augustus, with a representation that suggests the naval battle at Actium’ (193). Kellum carries on ‘By the magic of representation, Poplicola, the local hero, becomes on his tomb the stand-­in for the emperor himself ’ (193). Do we really believe this to represent Actium? There might have been an urban model for the battle scene on the relief, perhaps an Augustan image/relief of Actium itself. Therefore, this part of the relief may have had an Augustan model in Rome. I owe this last fascinating and insightful point to Matteo Cadario. There is however one slight problem. Would an Augustan model have shown Actium as a civil war? I am inclined to say no, not in connection with the triumph of 29. If so, however, certainly, as Trunk 2002, close to Actium. However, this does of course not exclude an Augustan model of a sea battle (just without the civil war). This is extremely likely.

288

Notes to pp. 189–191

90 This is supported by Trunk 2002: 251; Trunk 2010: esp. 36. Contrary to this John Rich believes that they are no later than the Forum Augustum. 91 Hölscher 2003: 3; contra Hannestad 2001, who also highlights the old mantra that the war against Antonius and Cleopatra was portrayed as a war against Egypt. Hannestad wrongly suggests that a civil war ‘. . . could not be celebrated as a bellum iustum piumque, a just and fair war’. It was never impossible; it just required a different approach. 92 On Claudius’ use of Augustus, see Hölscher 1994. According to Trunk 2010: esp. 36, as Suet., Calig. 23 (forbidden festivals celebrating Actium; cf. Dio Cass. 59.20.2), Suet., Claud. 11 (honouring Marcus Antonius), none of which excludes a Claudian date. A possible alternative date would be the reign of Caligula, who had stronger family ties to Augustus. This cannot be discounted entirely. 93 Even though pressure from his family is not implausible, this is also part of Suetonius’ portrayal of Claudius as an emperor dominated by freedmen and females. See Osgood 2011: esp. 15. This does not however necessarily discredit the outlined story and certainly not that he wrote a history from the end of the civil wars. 94 Meier 2010 suggests that in the ancient world civil wars should not be remembered but forgotten. He is no doubt right to criticize the use of the concept of ‘memory’ (cf. Berliner 2005, who suggests that the concept of ‘memory’ has increasingly become indistinguishable from concepts such as ‘culture’ and ‘identity’. He criticizes the idea that every little trace of the past in the present is perceived as memory; this is partly about clarity in the use of concepts). For a critique of Meier’s ideas of the art of forgetting, see now Assmann 2011. I would briefly like to put forward two arguments against Meier’s theory: on the one hand the many descriptions of civil war in our Greek and Roman evidence. One example will suffice: after the murder of Caesar an amnesty was called by Antonius on the 17 March 44, at a Senate meeting in the Temple of Tellus, in order to prevent more bloodshed. Antonius, a ‘Caesarian’, hoped to make an alliance with the murderers of Caesar, who themselves were trying to survive. In Res Gestae 1 Augustus, retrospectively, relates the same incidents: he claims that Antonius had oppressed the state through the tyranny of a faction. Cicero advocates reconciliation with the conspirators and this leads to an amnesty, the abolition of dictatorship and recognition of the acta of Caesar (Phil. 1.4, 31; 2.89; Att. 14.11.1, 14.2; Dio Cass. 44.22.2-34.1; App., B Civ. 2.126; Plut., Brut. 19; Ant. 14). This also holds true for the story used by Meier (Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 39.6). Whatever the answer is, looking at Meier, the fact remains that Cicero and others wrote it down – not to be forgotten, but certainly in order that it should never happen again. On the other hand the spectators of Octavian’s 29 triumph all knew or hoped that this was the end of the civil wars (Woolf 2012: 166). Octavian was clever enough to use this: he proclaimed to have ended the civil wars, began by Antonius, and brought peace to Rome (RG 34.1).

Notes to pp. 191–195

289

95 Livia was finally consecrated, with divine honours voted on 17 January 42 CE, the anniversary of her wedding with Augustus, by her grandson Claudius. Her image was drawn to the circus not by horses, but by elephants (Suet., Claud. 11.2), similar to Augustus, as mentioned above. See also Sen., Apocol. 9.5; Dio Cass. 60.5.2; Barrett 2002: 222–3. 96 See Alföldi 1971: 49–52; Cooley 2009: 264–5; Bergmann 2010: 135–205. 97 See Millar 2000: 6; Rich and Williams 1999. 98 Dio Cass. 53.16.4; RG 34.2; Ov., Met. 1.562-563; Fast. 4.953-954; Tr. 3.1.36-48; Rich 1990: 148; see also Chapter 6 for the legend RE PUBLICA CONSERVATA. 99 App., B Civ. 2.106; Dio Cass. 44.4.5; Weinstock 1971: 163–7; cf. Dio Cass. 47.13.3, for the triumvirs. 100 Trunk 2010: 36 emphasizes a fascinating coin by Sextus Pompeius (RRC 483/1), from 44–43, showing what appears to be a naval battle with two ships on each side. I agree that contextually this might be a civil war naval battle. It is difficult however to compare with the Spanish relief and it does not say anything about the triumph of 29. 101 contra Havener 2014. He does not however take the question of the missing enemy name into account. 102 Dio Cass. 51.19.2; 56.34.4; Frontin., Aq. 129.1; RG 21.2; Lange 2009: 160–61. 103 According to Gradel 2002: 281 the RG might be Augustus’ argument, his apologia, for state divinity (cf. Wardle 2012: 325).

Appendix 1 Lange 2009: esp. 125–7 on the honours after Actium. 2 On the triumphal route, see now esp. Östenberg 2010. As mentioned in Chapter 6, regarding the Arch of Augustus, the most likely scenario is still the one presented by Rich (1998), who suggests that the arch preserved is the Arch of Actium. Later alterations meant it could accommodate the standards, in order to celebrate the Parthian Settlement. (Cf. Lange 2009: 163–6). Contrary to this, see Nedergaard 2001: 107–27. It seems fair to suggest that it would seem very odd indeed if no monument commemorated Actium after 19, that is if the Parthian Arch took over from the demolished Actian arch. 3 Lange 2009: 34. 4 The arch was presented as a triumphal arch, connected to the ovation, but the ovation itself was declined. Nevertheless, the Actium-Parthian Arch was a triumphal arch. Cf. Tac., Ann. 2.41.1 (cf. Ann. 1.60; 2.25) on the Teutoburger-­dead: an arch was erected on the Forum Romanum close to the Temple of Saturn (propter aedem Saturni), to commemorate the recovery of standards lost by Varus in 9 CE. The arch

290

Notes to pp. 195–196

(single arch) is probably that depicted on the Arch of Constantine, north face, which shows Constantine’s address in the Forum (Holloway 2004: 46-7, illustrations). The context is presented by Tacitus. This was connected to the victories and subsequent triumph of Germanicus in 17 CE (Barini 1952: 57). However, the context in Tacitus separates the arch and the triumph by a year (arch from 16 CE). As in the case of Augustus, the arch was probably not related to an actual triumph. The recovery occurred under the leadership of Germanicus, but under the auspices of Tiberius. The arch was commemorated to Tiberius. Thus we see a triumph-­like celebration connected to the recovery of the standards (cf. Dio Cass. 60.8.7, on standards recovered under Claudius). It is uncertain as to whether any archaeological traces have been found (Coarelli 1993: 107; Claridge 2010: 84). 5 Beard 2007: 45–6; Kontokosta 2013: 9, n. 17. On arches, see also Kähler 1939; Kleiner 1989; Kontokosta 2013, with more bibliography. For the words fornix and arcus, replacing fornix during Augustus’ reign, see Kontokosta 2013: 30; Wallace-Hadrill 1990. 6 See Kontokosta 2013 for a catalogue of these. 7 Livy 33.27.3-5. According to Coarelli 1968: 88–92; Coarelli 1992: 363–437, Hadrianic foundations in the area were a Domitianic rebuilding of the Republican Porta Triumphalis. This was in fact a double arch constituting the two fornices of Stertinius. According to Kontokosta 2013: 26 the Porta Triumphalis may have been the model (as a gate) for Republican arches. This seems reasonable. 8 Cornelius Blasio, privatus cum imperio, was granted an ovation (Degrassi 1947: 78–9, 552). 9 Kontokosta 2013: 14 suggests the triumphal procession may have passed under this arch. 10 Mommsen 1887.1: 447–9; Pietilä-Castrén 1987: 71–4, call them public, rather than private monuments (73); contra Wallace-Hadrill 1990: 146, who talks about sole initiative of the honorand. But according to Brennan (1996: 326 and n. 69) Stertinius did not own the land on the Forum Boarium and the Circus Maximus. 11 Cic., Planc. 17; De or. 2.267; Verr. 1.7.19. In 57 as aedil, Fabius Maximus (triumph 45, Degrassi 1947: 86–7, 567) restored the arch of his grandfather, Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, putting up a new inscription (CIL 6.1303). 12 See Chioffi 1995; Itgenshorst 2005: 130–32. 13 Kontokosta (2013: esp. 23) dismisses the old idea of arches as votive monuments, and instead emphasizes military commemoration and the competitive nature of the Roman Republic. She does however take Beard’s (2007) scepticism regarding the triumphal route too far (and she has overlooked Östenberg 2010), although she does accept that they were victory monuments (Kontokosta 2013: 13). She curiously suggests that the Arch of Scipio was placed at/on the ‘sometime-­triumphal route’ (Kontokosta 2013: 15). Excepting the very different ceremonies that took place outside Rome, all triumphs ended on the Capitoline.

Notes to pp. 197–199

291

14 Cf. 472: ‘Der Ehrenbogen war dazu bestimmt Statuen zu tragen’; cf. Pliny. 15 Kähler 1939: 464–5; Beard 2007: 45–6. See also Wallace-Hadrill 1990. 16 McClister (2012: 631) suggests that arches that commemorated military victories were triumphal arches; whereas arches that commemorated non-­military victories were honorific arches (cf. Kontokosta 2013: 16). This I believe is simplifying matters, as some arches commemorate victories without triumphs, whereas some arches commemorated both military and non-­military achievements (such as the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum; see Kähler 1939: 387–8 on arches of Trajan in Rome). 17 Flaig 1992; cf. 2010; McCormick 1986: 13; Ando 2000: 277. On consensus, see Ando 2000 and on the Roman emperor as a unifying symbol, see Noreña 2011. 18 See also Chapter 6. 19 Ando 2000: esp. 294. 20 Suet., Vesp. 8.1; Joseph., BJ 7.118-57; Dio Cass. 65.12.1. See also Beard 2003: 557: ‘So Vespasian and Titus could celebrate victory over the Jews as an elegant cover for their victory against the Roman supporters of Vitellius. It was not a perfect solution; for it would hardly have taken the most cynical commentator to suggest that the suppression of rebellion in an existing Roman province was not exactly a foreign conquest. All the same, the Jews were the most plausible foreign enemy available’. 21 See now Stover 2012 on Flaccus’ reaction to Vespasianic restoration after the civil war 68–69 CE and Lucan’s Bellum Civile. Stover interestingly claims that the poet presents civil war as a catalyst of positive change (the new beginning) (Stover 2012: 6, 113–50). This is very similar to the politics of Augustus (Lange 2009). 22 Noreña (2011: 128) states that Vespasian’s Templum Pacis celebrated only the victory over the Jews, but it is reasonable to conclude that it may also have celebrated a civil war victory, mentioned or not: pax according to Noreña himself had a dual meaning, in Roman civil society implying an absence of civil war (Noreña 2011: 127–32). For the Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, as a victory monument, using spoils of war (praeda) to finance the construction, see AE 1995, 111; Alföldy 1995. 23 In 19 CE an arch was decreed for Germanicus upon his death, in the Circus Flaminius; on its top was to be placed a statue of Germanicus in a triumphal chariot, flanked by family members (Tabula Siarensis frag. (a), lines 9–21 (= Crawford 1996: no. 37–8, pp. 515–16; Tac., Ann. 2.83.2, recording three arches: Rome, Germany and Syria; Kleiner 1989: 200–201). This connection of death and triumph is visible in the funeral of Augustus, with its reversed triumph. 24 Künzl 1988: 19–24, suggests that this was not a triumphal arch, but an honorific arch built to celebrate the apotheosis of Titus, clearly visible on a panel (21). This seems an overly rigid interpretation of the monument. Cf. Freyberger 2009: 88, who also talks of ‘Ehrenbogen’ and the apotheosis of Titus (contrary to the entry on the Arch of Septimius Severus (92), which of course may not be a triumphal arch at all; see below).

292

Notes to pp. 200–201

25 Freyberger 2009: 92 curiously claims that this arch was built on the foundation of an earlier arch, the Parthian Arch of Augustus. 26 See also Lichtenberger 2011: 75; Brilliant 1967; 1993; Noreña 2011: 226–7. Geta’s name was later removed. 27 During the reign of Augustus it had figured at least in the Laudatio Turiae 2.25. 28 Lange 2009. RG, heading: conqueror of the known world. This echoes the Augustan arch: Lusnia 2006: 292; Birley 1988: 155. Lloyd (2013: 552, n. 17, 557) connects the two arches, but mistakenly assumes that the Augustan arch was only celebrating a diplomatic victory. Even if we were to assume that it was the Parthian Arch (not a rebuilding of the Actian Arch as the Actium-Parthian Arch), nothing would have pointed towards Augustus emphasizing diplomacy on the arch, as such monuments represented and embodied victory. I think we can safely make the same conclusion for Septimius Severus. Rantala (2013: 50–51) suggests that it was situated in a symmetrical relation to the Arch of Augustus, thus symbolically connecting it to the past. This is certainly not impossible, but we should not forget the importance of the Forum Romanum itself, the Temple of Concordia after civil war, and the Via Sacra, to mention a few important features of the area. There is little reason to assume, with Rantala, that the arch was built close to the Curia to show the senators who the master of Rome was. They already knew. 29 He was also proclaimed imperator after civil war victories, as was Augustus; see tabulation in Lloyd 2013: 569. 30 See also Rosenberger 1992: 111–15. 31 Hdn. 3.10.1-2; Dio Cass. 77.1.1-5; RIC 4 68–69. 32 So also Beard 2007: 322–3; Lloyd 2013: 554. 33 Sev. 16.6-7. SHA, M. Ant. 9.6-7 (cf. Sev. 21.12) refers to a porticus and may contradict Sev. 16.6-7, as it mentions triumphs. Indeed, the author is indicating campaigns that resulted in triumphs and those that did not: triumphos et bella. 34 Birley 1988: 144–5, 155 is inclined to think that Severus may have held an ovation on return from Africa in 203, but this is taking SHA 14.7 veluti ovans too literally. Some scholars believe the panel reliefs on the arch were based upon triumphal paintings (Brilliant 1967: 223; Lusnia 2006: 284). 35 On the issue of whether Constantine’s entry into Rome in 312 CE constitutes a triumph, see Lange 2012; I suggest that it was, and focus on the procession including the head of Maxentius, arguing that it is best understood in connection with the Republican triumphal tradition. There is nothing to suggest that Constantine was opposed to the concept and the idea of triumph. 36 For the arch, see L’Orange and Gerkan 1939; Capodiferro 1993; Pensabene and Panella 1999; Elsner 2000; 2012; Holloway 2004. On Constantine and civil war, see now Lange 2012; Wienand 2012.

Notes to p. 202

293

37 Elsner 2000: 171, n. 28; Liverani 2004: 399; Van Dam 2011: 14, 126, 129; Zanker 2012: esp. 99–100. For the essentially passive emperor, see mainly Millar 1977. Contrary to this view, see now Prusac 2012, who sustains Constantine’s agency (cf. Rowan 2013: esp. 213), suggesting that it is unlikely that the emperor decided on all details; they were probably produced by a group, who worked with the emperor and had a good understanding of his desires and ideologies. This is reasonable, even if she overlooks the role of the Senate, who would have been part of the group. contra Mayer 2010: 11, who assumes that the emperor did not usually have a say in the design of monuments erected by the Senate. Importantly, they would not knowingly erect a monument of which the emperor would disapprove, and, furthermore, it was built after he had had the chance to decline the honour. Whether he was directly involved we cannot know, but to disconnect the emperor and the SPQR in the developments of imperial ideology seems extreme and rather unnecessary. Furthermore, Mayer assumes, mistakenly, that the Principate equals a restored Republic (12). This does not help the discussion. 38 Barnes 2011: 19–20; cf. Lenski 2008. Some scholars have pointed out that there is a lack of references to Christianity on the arch and its inscription (Elsner 2012: 259; Peirce 1989: 406; contra Girardet 2010: instinctu divinitatis could be Christian (84–5, 88 on religious ambiguity)). See also Van Dam 2011: 131 on religious flexibility. On Sol and the arch, see Zanker 2012: 81; Prusac 2012: 150–52, on the ambiguity of symbols. Potter 2013: 165–6, and Fig. 18.2 rightly emphasizes that the great colossus, honouring the Sun god, would have been highly visible through the central archway of the arch. 39 Stephenson 2009: 157; Girardet 2010: 83; Elsner 2012: 259. 40 Hedrick 2000. For the typical use of tyrannus in connection with late Antique civil wars, see Rosenberger 1992: 125. 41 An inscription, although deriving from an equestrian statue dedicated to Constantius II, also shows clear connections to Augustus and Constantine (ILS 731), as well as referring to civil war and triumph: RESTITVTORI VRBIS ROMAE ADQVE ORB[IS] ET EXTINCTORI PESTIFERAE TYRANNIDIS, D. N. FL. IVL. CONSTANTIO VICTORI AC TRIVMFATORI SEMPER AVGVSTO, NERATIVS CERE[A]LIS V. C. PRAEFECTVS VRBI VICE SACRA IVDICANS, D.N.M.QVE EIVS. (‘To him who has restored the city of Rome and the world and extinguished the pestilential tyranny, to our lord Flavius Iulius Constantius, victor and triumphator, ever Augustus,

294

Notes to pp. 202–204 (this statue was erected by) Neratius Cerealis, senator in charge of the city, acting as supreme judge, dedicated to the emperor’s divine majesty’) [Trans. Richard Westall].

42 Elsner (2000: 173) unconvincingly suggests that: ‘Implicitly, the civil war has become a great victory over Rome’s enemies, with the visual emphasis significantly turning on foreign enemies’. See also Faust 2011: 402, discussing the so-­called adventus of Constantine 312: ‘Hierdurch wird in der Tat das Prestige, das insbesondere mit der Heimkehr des Kaisers nach siegreichen Auseinandersetzungen mit äußeren Feienden verbunden ist, auf die problematischen Vorgänge im Zusammenhang mit dem Bürgerkrieg und der Einnahme Roms übertragen. Wie im übrigen Bildschmuck und in der Inschrift wird der eigentliche Gegner, Maxentius, auf dieser Weise externalisiert und anonymisiert’. Faust (402–3) also suggests that a triumph was avoided, as this would be contrary to Constantine’s policy of consensus universorum. This conclusion is however contrary to the inscription on the arch, blatantly signifying a civil war. Harris (2012: 118) suggests, surprisingly, that the inscription does not record a civil war, only the liberation of Italy from a tyrannus. This however is mainly a question of semantic confusion. 43 contra Elsner 2012: 258–9; Mayer 2006: 146. 44 The Constantine panels depict the advance from Milan, the siege of Verona, the battle at the Milvian Bridge, entry into Rome, and activities in Rome (L’Orange and Gerkan 1939; Elsner 2000; Holloway 2004. See also Faust 2011, who suggests a narrative reading of the panels; Zanker 2012: 85–99, 88–90 on the soldiers of Maxentius). These are all visible representations of the campaign against Maxentius. Even though Constantine’s entry into Rome does not show him in a quadriga (Stephenson 2009: 156; Elsner 2012: 258 for the lost statue group on top of the arch; contra Holloway 2004: 51, suggesting that there was no quadriga, as this was a victory in a civil war) it seems extreme to suggest that the panel(s) only show an adventus (MacCormack 1981: 36–7). Faust (2011: esp. 402) suggests that the ingressus looked like a triumph, but was not. However, this rests solely on the idea that no triumph is (allegedly) shown on the Constantine panels. Furthermore, it does not take into account that rituals change over time. On Constantine and adventus, see Lange 2012. 45 Holloway 2004: 37; Zanker 2012: 95. 46 Holloway 2004; cf. Elsner 2012. Stephenson 2009: esp. 142, 151 on the building programme. On Constantine and the building programme of Maxentius, see Marlowe 2010. She points to Constantine’s dubious role of slayer of the city’s great benefactor, at the same time stressing that Constantine was there for the first time on the 29 October 312 CE. Cf. Prusac 2012. 47 Liverani 2004 claims that L’Orange and Gerkan 1939 were wrong to state that Constantine wanted to identify with earlier emperors. See also Faust 2011; contra Prusac 2012.

Notes to p. 204

295

48 Elsner 2000: 152; cf. Peirce 1989: 416 on stylistic continuity. 49 In 389 Theodosius I celebrated a triumph in Rome on the first anniversary of his victory over Magnus Maximus. As part of the celebration a speech was delivered by Pacatus in the presence of the emperor (Pan. Lat. 2(12).46.4; cf. 47.3; Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 443).

Bibliography Albrecht, M. von (2012), Geschichte der römischen Literatur von Andronicus bis Boethius und ihr Fortwirken, 2 vols, 3rd edn, Berlin: De Gruyter. Alföldi, A. (1963), Early Rome and the Latins, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Alföldi, A. (1971), Der Vater des Vaterlandes im römischen Denken, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Alföldi, A. (1976), Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht, Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Alföldy, G. (1991), ‘Epigraphische Notizen aus Italien IV. Das Ende der Bürgerkriege in Den Fasti Amiternini’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 85: 167–71. Alföldy, G. (1995), ‘Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109: 195–226. Ando, C. (2000), Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, Berkeley: University of California Press. Ando, C. (2008), ‘Decline, Fall, and Transformation’, Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (1): 31–60. Arata, F.P. and Felici, E. (2011), ‘Porticus Aemilia, Navalia o Horrea? Ancora sui Frammenti 23 E 24 b-­d della Forma Urbis’, Archeologia Classica 62: 127–53. Arena, V. (2012), Libertas and the Practice of Politics in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Armitage, D. (2009), ‘Civil War and Revolution’, Agora 44: 18–22. Armstrong, J. (2013), ‘Claiming Victory: the Early Roman Triumph’, in A. Spalinger and J. Armstrong (eds), Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World, 7–21, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Assenmaker, P. (2012), ‘Nouvelles perspectives sur le titre d’imperator et l’appellatio imperatoria sous la République’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire/ Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis 90: 111–42. Assenmaker, P. (2013), ‘Les trophées syllaniens de Chéronée : une relecture de Plutarque, Vie de Sylla 19, 9–10 à la lumière des découvertes archéologiques’, Latomus: Revue D’Etudes Latines 72: 946–55. Assmann, A. (2011), ‘Vergessen oder Erinnern? Wege aus einer gemeinsamen Gewaltgeschichte’, in S. Ferhadbegovic and B. Weiffen (eds), Bürgerkriege erzählen. Zum Verlauf unziviler Konflikte, 303–19, Konstanz: Konstanz University Press. Auliard, C. (2001), Victoires et triomphes à Rome. Droit et réalites sous la République, Paris: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. Balbuza, K. (1999), ‘Die Siegesideologie von Octavian Augustus’, Eos 86: 267–99.

298

Bibliography

Barchiesi, A. (2005), ‘Learned Eyes: Poets, Viewers, Image’, in K. Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, 281–305, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barini, C. (1952), Triumphalia. Imprese ed onori militari durante l’Impero Romano, Turin: Società Editrice Internazionale. Barnes, T.D. (2011), Constantine. Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Barrett, A.A. (2002), Livia. First Lady of Imperial Rome, New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Barton, T. (1995), ‘Augustus and Capricorn: Astrological Polyvalency and Imperial Rhetoric’, Journal of Roman Studies 85: 33–51. Bastien, J.L. (2007), Le triomphe romain et son utilisation politique à Rome aux trois derniers siècles de la République, Rome: Ecole Française de Rome. Beard, M. (2003), ‘The Triumph of Flavius Josephus’, in A.J. Boyle and W.J. Dominik (eds), Flavian Rome. Culture, Image, Text, 543–58, Leiden: Brill. Beard, M. (2007), The Roman Triumph, Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press. Beard, M. (2014), ‘The new Augustus’, The Times Literary Supplement, 2 January. Available Online at http://www.the-­tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1358281.ece [accessed 28 January 2016]. Beard, M. and Crawford, M. (1985), Rome in the Late Republic, London: Duckworth. Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S. (1998), Religions of Rome, volume I and II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beck, H. (2005), Karriere und Hierarchie. Die römische Aristokratie und die Anfänge des cursus honorum in der mittleren Republik, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Beck, H. (2013), ‘Polybius’ Roman prokataskeuē’, in B. Gibson and T. Harrison (eds), Polybius and His World. Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank, 125–42, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Behr, H. (1993), Die Selbstdarstellung Sullas. Ein aristokratischer Politiker zwischen persönlichem Führungsanspruch und Standessolidarität, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Beloch, K.J. (1926), Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Punischen Kriege, Berlin: De Gruyter. Benoist, S. (2005), Rome, le prince et la Cité: Pouvoir impérial et cérémonies publiques, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Bergmann, B. (2010), Der Kranz des Kaisers. Genese und Bedeutung einer römischen Insignie, Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Bergmann, B. (2011), ‘Die Corona Navalis – Eine Sonderehrung für Agrippa’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologisches Instituts 126: 77–106. Berliner, D. (2005), ‘Social Thought & Commentary: The Abuses of Memory: Reflections on the Memory Boom in Anthropology’, Anthropological Quarterly 78 (1): 197–211.

Bibliography

299

Bernard, S.G. (2012), ‘Continuing the Debate on Rome’s Earliest Circuit Walls’, Papers of the British School at Rome 80: 1–44. Bessone, L. Di (1993), ‘Floro: un retore storico e poeta’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 34 (1): 80–117. Birley, A.R. (1988), The African Emperor: Septimius Severus, Oxford: Batsford. Bjørnebye, J. (2013), ‘Ammianus and Constantius’ Adventus – Rome from Site to Sight’, Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 26: 31–46. Black, J. (2004), Rethinking Military History, London & New York: Routledge. Black, J. (2012), War and the Cultural Turn, Cambridge: Polity Press. Blackman, D. (2008), ‘Roman Shipsheds’, in R.L. Hohlfelder (ed.), The Maritime World of Ancient Rome, 23–36, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Blackman, D. and Rankov, B. (2014), Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bleckmann, B. (2002), Die römische Nobilität im Ersten Punischen Krieg. Untersuchungen zur aristokratischen Konkurrenz in der Republik, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bleckmann, B. (2012), ‘Sources for the History of Constantine’, in N. Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, 14–31, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bleicken, J. (1962), Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht: Eine Studie zur Entwicklung des Prozessrechtes im fruhen Prinzipat, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Blom, H. van der (forthcoming), ‘Elite Rhetoric and Self-­presentation: Metellus Numidicus Returns’, in A. Serafim, B. da Vela and S. Papaioannou (eds), A Theatre of Justice: Aspects of Performance in Greco-Roman Oratory and Rhetoric, Leiden: Brill. Bloomer, M. (1992), Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility, Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press. Blösel, W. (2011), ‘Die Demilitarisierung der römischen Nobilität von Sulla bis Caesar’, in W. Blösel and K.-J. Hölkeskamp (eds), Von der militia equestris zur militia urbana, 55–80, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Bonfante Warren, L. (1970), ‘Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The Changing Face of the Triumph’, Journal of Roman Studies 60: 49–66. Bonnefond-Coudry, M. (1989), Le Sénat de la république romaine de la guerre d’Hannibal à Auguste, Rome: Ecole Française de Rome. Boot, M. (2013a), ‘The Evolution of Irregular War’, Foreign Affairs February, March Issue. Available Online at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138824/max-­boot/ the-­evolution-of-­irregular-war [accessed 28 January 2016]. Boot, M. (2013b), Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present, New York: Liveright Publishing Cooperation. Börm, H. and Havener, W. (2012), ‘Octavians Rechtsstellung im Januar 27 v. Chr. und das Problem der “Übertragung” der Res Publica’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 61 (2): 202–20. Börm, H., Mattheis, M. and Wienand, J. (eds) (2015) Civil War in Ancient Greece and Rome. Contexts of Disintegration and Reintegration, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

300

Bibliography

Bowman, A.K., Champlin, E. and Lintott, A. (eds) (1996), The Cambridge Ancient History 102: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyce, A.A. (1942), ‘The Origin of Ornamenta Triumphalia’, Classical Philology 37 (2): 130–41. Bradley, K.R. (1998), Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 BC – 70 BC, Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Bradley, K. (2004), ‘On Captives under the Principate’, Phoenix 58 (3/4): 298–318. Braund, D. (1984), ‘Anth. Pal. 9.235: Juba II, Cleopatra Selene and the Course of the Nile’, Classical Quarterly 34 (1): 175–8. Breed, B.W., Damon, C. and Rossi, A. (eds) (2010), Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Brennan, T.C. (1994), ‘M.’ Curius Dentatus and the Praetor’s Right to Triumph’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 43 (4): 423–39. Brennan, T.C. (1996), ‘Triumphus in Monte Albano’, in R.W. Wallace and E.M. Harris (eds), Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History 360–146 BC, in Honor of E. Badian, 315–37, Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. Brice, L.L. and Roberts, J.T. (eds) (2011), Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World, Claremont, California: Regina Books. Brilliant, R. (1967), The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum, Rome: The American Academy in Rome. Brilliant, R. (1993), ‘Arcus: Septimius Severus (Forum)’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 1, 103–5, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Briscoe, J. (1981), A Commentary on Livy, Books 34–37, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Briscoe, J. (2012), A Commentary on Livy, Books 41–45, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Briscoe, J. (2013), ‘Some Misunderstandings of Polybius in Livy’, in B. Gibson and T. Harrison (eds), Polybius and His World. Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank, 117–24, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, P. (1971), The World of Late Antiquity, London: Thames and Hudson. Brunt, P.A. (1966), ‘The Roman Mob’, Past and Present 35 (1): 3–27. Brunt, P.A. (1968), ‘Review of Christian Meier, Res Publica Amissa, Eine Studie zu Verfassung und Geschichte der Späten Römischen Republik’, Journal of Roman Studies 58: 229–32. Brunt, P.A. (1971), Italian Manpower 225 B.C.–A.D. 14, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brunt, P.A. (1988), The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, R.W. (2000), “NON DUO ANTONINI SED DUO AUGUSTI”. The Consuls of 161 and the Origins and Traditions of the Latin Consular Fasti of the Roman Empire’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 132: 259–90. Buxton, B.A. (2014), ‘A New Reading of the Belvedere Altar’, American Journal of Archaeology 118 (1): 91–111.

Bibliography

301

Cadario, M. (2004), La corazza di Alessandro. Loricati di tipo ellenistico dal IV secolo a. C. al II d. C., Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie. Cadario, M. (2005), ‘I Claudi Marcelli: strategie di propaganda in monumenti onorari e dediche votive tra III e I sec. a.C.’, Ostraka 24 (2): 147–77. Cadario, M. (2006), ‘Le statue di Cesare a Roma tra il 46 e il 44 a.C. La celebrazione della vittoria e il confronto con Alessandro e Romolo’, ACME 59 (3): 25–70. Cadario, M. (2013), ‘La destruction délibérée des statues pour des raisons politiques dans le monde romain’, in J. Driessen (ed.), Destruction: Archaeological, Philological and Historical Perspectives, 415–33, Louvain: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Cadario, M. (2014), ‘Preparing for Triumph. Graecae Artes as Roman booty in L. Mummius’ campaign (146 BC)’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 83–101, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Cagnniart, P. (2007), ‘The Late Republican Army (146–30 BC)’, in P. Erdkamp (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army, 80–95, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Cameron, A. (1979), Claudian. Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Capodiferro, A. (1993), ‘Arcus Constantini’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 1, 86–91, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Carey, S. (2003), Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture. Art and Empire in the Natural History, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carlsen, J. (2014), ‘De perfidia? Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus’ Victory and Triumph over the Arverni’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 105–15, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Carter, J. (1996), Appian, The Civil Wars, London: Penguin. Champlin, E. (2003), Nero, Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press. Chaplin, J.D. (2000), Livy’s Exemplary History, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chioffi, L. (1993), ‘Columna rostrata C. Duilii (Forum)’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 1, 309, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Chioffi, L. (1995), ‘Fornix Fabianus’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 2, 264–66, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Christia, F. (2012), Alliance Formation in Civil Wars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Claridge, A. (2010), Rome. An Oxford Archeological Guide, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, J.H. (2014), Triumph in Defeat. Military Loss and the Roman Republic, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Clausetti, E. (1932), Navi e simboli marittimi sulle monete dell’antica Roma, Rome: Edito dal Ministero della Marina. Coarelli, F. (1968), ‘La porta trionfale e la via dei trionfi’, Dialoghi di archeologia 2: 55–103. Coarelli, F. (1992), Il Foro Boario dalle origini alla fine della repubblica, 2nd edn, Rome: Edizioni Quasar.

302

Bibliography

Coarelli, F. (1993), ‘Arcus Tiberii (Forum)’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 1, 107–8, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Coarelli, F. (1996a), ‘Ianus (apud Forum Holitorium, ad Theatrum Marcelli)’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 3, 90–91, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Coarelli, F. (1996b), ‘Navalia’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 3, 339–40, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Coarelli, F. (1999a), ‘Sepulcrum: A. Hirtius’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 4, 290, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Coarelli, F. (1999b), ‘Sepulcrum: C. Vibius Pansa’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 4, 302, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Coarelli, F. (2007), ‘Horrea Cornalia?’, in A. Leone, D. Palombi and S. Walker (eds), Res Bene Gestae: ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby, 41–6, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Coker, C. (2014), Can War be Eliminated?, Cambridge: Polity Press. Collins, J.H. (1972), ‘Caesar as Political Propagandist’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 1 (1): 942–63. Cooley, A.E. (2009), Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooley, A.E. (2012), ‘Commemorating the War Dead of the Roman World’, in P. Low, G. Oliver and P.J. Rhodes (eds), Cultures of Commemoration: War Memorials, Ancient and Modern, 63–88, Oxford: Oxford University Press/British Academy. Cornell, T.J. (1995), The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC), London: Routledge. Cornell, T.J. (ed.) (2013), The Fragments of the Roman Historians, Vol. 1–3, Oxford: Oxford University Press = FRHist. Cozza, L. and Tucci, P.L. (2006), ‘Navalia’, Archeologia Classica 57: 175–202. Crawford, M.H. (1996), Roman statutes, 2 vols, London: University of London Institute of Classical Studies. Crawford, M.H. (2008), ‘States Waiting in the Wings: Population Distribution and the End of the Roman Republic’, in L. de Ligt and S. Northwood (eds), People, Land, and Politics. Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC– AD 14, 631–43, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Crook, J.A., Lintott, A. and Rawson, E. (1994) (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History 92: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 BC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daly, G. (2002), Cannae. The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War, London & New York: Routledge. Dart, C.J. (2014), The Social War, 91 to 88 BCE. A History of the Italian Insurgency against the Roman Republic, Farnham: Ashgate. Dart, C.J. and Vervaet, F.J. (2011), ‘The Significance of the Naval Triumph in Roman History (260–29 BCE)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 176: 267–80.

Bibliography

303

Dart, C.J. and Vervaet, F.J. (2014), ‘Claiming Triumphs for Recovered Territories: Reflections on Valerius Maximus 2.8.4’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 53–64, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Davies, J.P. (2004), Rome’s Religious History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on their Gods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeBrohun, J.B. (2007), ‘The Gates of War (and Peace): Roman Literary Perspectives’, in K.A. Raaflaub (ed.), War and Peace in the Ancient World, 256–78, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Degrassi, A. (1937), Inscriptiones Italiae Vol. 13/3, Elogia, Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Degrassi, A. (1947), Inscriptiones Italiae Vol. 13/1, Fasti Consulares et Triumphales, Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Degrassi, A. (1963), Inscriptiones Italiae 13/2, Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani, Rome: Libreria dello Stato. Dessau, H. (1906), ‘Livius and Augustus’, Hermes 41: 142–51. Dettenhofer, M.H. (2000), Herrschaft und Widerstand im Augusteischen Principat. Die Konkurrenz zwischen Res Publica und Domus Augusta, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Develin, R. (1978), ‘Tradition and the Development of Triumphal Regulations in Rome’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 60 (2): 429–38. Doran, S. (2012), Royal River. Power, Pageantry & the Thames, London: Scala Publishing/National Maritime Museum. Droge, A.J. (2011/2012), ‘Finding his Niche: On the “Autoapotheosis” of Augustus’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 56/57: 85–112. Drogula, F.K. (2007), ‘Imperium, Potestas, and the Pomerium in the Roman Republic’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 56 (4): 419–52. Drogula, F.K. (2015), Commanders and Command in the Roman Republic and Early Empire, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Drummond, A. (1995), Law, Politics and Power. Sallust and the Execution of the Catilinarian Conspirators, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Duyvesteyn, I. (2005), ‘The Concept of Conventional War and Armed Conflict in Collapsed States’, in I. Duyvesteyn and J. Angstrom (eds), Rethinking the Nature of War, 65–87, London & New York: Routledge. Eckstein, A.M. (2006), Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. Eckstein, A.M. (2008), Rome Enters the Greek East. From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230–170 BC, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Eckstein, H. (1965), ‘On the Etiology of Internal Wars’, History and Theory 4 (2): 133–63. Eder, W. (1990), ‘Augustus and the Power of Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link between Republic and Empire’, in K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toher (eds), Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, 71–122, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.

304

Bibliography

Eder, W. (2002), ‘Triumph –Triumphzug’, in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike 12 (1): 836–8. Edwell, P. (2011), ‘War Abroad: Spain, Sicily, Macedon, Africa’, in D. Hoyos (ed.), A Companion to the Punic Wars, 320–38, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Ehlers, W. (1939), ‘Triumphus’, in G. Wissowa (ed.), Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 7 (1): 493–511. Elsner, J. (2000), ‘From the Culture of Spolia to the Cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms’, Papers of the British School at Rome 68: 149–84. Elsner, J. (2012), ‘Perspectives in Art’, in N. Lenski (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, 255–77, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engels, J. (2001), ‘Die exempla–Reihe de iure triumphandi – Römisch–republikanische Werte und Institutionen im frühkaiserzeitlichen Spiegel der facta et dicta memorabilia des Valerius Maximus’, in A. Barzanò, F. Gattinoni and G. Zecchini (eds), Identità e valori fattori di aggregazione e fattori di crisi nell’esperienza politica antica, 139–69, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Erskine, A. (2013), ‘Hellenistic Parades and Roman Triumphs’, in A. Spalinger and J. Armstrong (eds), Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World, 37–55, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Esdaile, C. (2014), The Duke of Wellington: Military Dispatches, London: Penguin. Evans, R. (1994), Gaius Marius. A Political Biography, Pretoria: University of South Africa. Ezrow, N.M. and Frantz, E. (2013), Failed States and Institutional Decay. Understanding Instability and Poverty in the Developing World, New York & London: Bloomsbury Academic. Fadinger, V. (1969), Die Begründung des Prinzipats. Quellenkritische und staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dio und der Parallelüberlieferung, Berlin: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Farrell, J. and Nelis, D.P. (eds) (2013), Augustan Poetry and the Roman Republic, 244–62, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Faust, S. (2011), ‘Original und Spolie. Interaktive Strategien im Bildprogramm des Konstantinsbogens’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 117: 377–408. Fearon, J.D. and Laitin, D.D. (2003), ‘Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War’, The American Political Science Review 97 (1): 75–90. Feeney, D.C. (2007), Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History, Berkeley: University of California Press. Fejfer, J. (2008), Roman Portraits in Context, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Felletti Maj, B.M (1977), La tradizione italica nell’arte romana, Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider. Ferrary, J.-L. (2009), ‘The Powers of Augustus’, in J. Edmondson (ed.), Augustus, 90–136, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Bibliography

305

Flaig, E. (1992), Den Kaiser herausfordern: Die Usurpation im Römischen Reich, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Flaig, E. (2004), Ritualisierte Politik. Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Flower, H.I. (1996), Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flower, H.I. (2000), ‘The Tradition of the spolia opima: M. Claudius Marcellus and Augustus’, Classical Antiquity 19 (1): 34–64. Flower, H.I. (2006), The Art of Forgetting. Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Flower, H.I. (2010), Roman Republics, Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press. Fornara, C.W. (1992), ‘Studies in Ammianus Marcellinus II: Ammianus’ Knowledge and Use of Greek and Latin Literature’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 41 (4): 420–38. Forsythe, G. (1994), The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, Lanham, Maryland & London: University Press of America. Forsythe, G. (2000), ‘The Roman Historians of the Second Century BC’, in C. Bruun (ed.), The Roman Middle Republic. Politics, Religion and Historiography c. 400–133 BC, 1–11, Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae. Frank, T. (1919), ‘The Columna Rostrata of C. Duilius’, Classical Philology 14 (1): 74–82. Freyberger, K.S. (2009), Das Forum Romanum. Spiegel der Stadtgeschichte des antiken Rom, Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Frier, B.W. (1999), Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition, 2nd edn, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Fuhrmann, C.J. (2012), Policing the Roman Empire: Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Galinsky, K. (1996), Augustan Culture. An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Galinsky, K. (2012), Augustus. Introduction to the Life of an Emperor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geiger, J. (2008), The First Hall of Fame: A Study of the Statues in the Forum Augustum, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Gelzer, M. (1967), ‘Caesar als Historiker’, in D. Rasmussen (ed.), Caesar, 438–73, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Gerding, H. (2008), ‘Reconsidering the Tomb of Aulus Hirtius’, Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 1: 145–54. Gibbon, E. (1796), Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon. John Lord Sheffield, Dublin (= 1764, Upon the Triumphs of the Romans, Rome). Giovannini, A. (1983), Consulare imperium, Basel: Schwabe Verlag. Girardet, K.M. (2010), Der Kaiser und sein Gott. Das Christentum im Denken und in der Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen, Berlin: De Gruyter.

306

Bibliography

Glinister, F., Woods, C., North, J.A. and Crawford, M.H. (eds) (2007), Verrius, Festus and Paul. Lexicography, Scholarship, and Society, London: University of London Institute of Classical Studies. Gnoli, T. (2012), Navalia: guerre e commerci nel Mediterraneo romano, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Goette, H.R. (1988), ‘Mulleus-Embas-Calceus. Ikonografische Studien zu römischem Schuhwerk’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 103: 401–64. Goldbeck, F. and Mittag, P.F. (2008), ‘Der geregelte Triumph: Der republikanische Triumph bei Valerius Maximus und Aulus Gellius’, in H. Krasser, D. Pausch and I. Petrovic (eds), Triplici invectus triumpho. Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit, 55–74, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Golden, G.K. (2013), Crisis Management during the Roman Republic. The Role of Political Institutions in Emergencies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Görler, W. (1993), ‘Tiberaufwärts nach Rom. Ein Thema und seine Variationen’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 75: 228–43. Gotter, U. (1996), Der Diktator ist tot! Politik in Rom zwischen den Iden des Märtz und der Begründing des Zweiten Triumvirats, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Gotter, U. (2011), ‘Abgeschlagene Hände und herausquellendes Gedärm. Das hässliche Antlitz der römischen Bürgerkriege und seine politischen Kontexte’, in S. Ferhadbegović and B. Weiffen (eds), Bürgerkriege erzählen. Zum Verlauf unziviler Konflikte, 55–69, Konstanz: Konstanz University Press. Gowing, A.M. (1992), The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Gradel, I. (2002), Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grillo, L. (2012), The Art of Caesar’s Bellum Civile. Literature, Ideology, and Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grossman, D. (2009), On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, 2nd edn, New York: Back Bay Books. Gruen, E.S. (1974), The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, Berkeley: University of California Press. Gruen, E.S. (1990), Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy, Leiden: Brill. Gruen, E.S. (1992), Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, Ithaca & New York: Cornell University Press. Grünewald, T. (1990), Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der Zeitgenössischen Überlieferung, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Guidetti, F. (2009), ‘Tensam non tenuit. Cicerone, Arnobio e il modo di condurre i carri sacri’, Studi Classici e Orientali 55: 233–48. Gurval, R.A. (1995), Actium and Augustus. The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Halfmann, H. (1986), Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Bibliography

307

Hannestad, N. (2001), ‘Rome and her Enemies: Warfare in Imperial Art’, in T. BekkerNielsen and L. Hannestad (eds), War as a Cultural and Social Force. Essays on Warfare in Antiquity, 146–54, Copenhagen: Det kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab. Harris, J. (2012), Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363. The New Empire, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Haselberger, L. (2002), Mapping Augustan Rome, Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Hau, L. I. (2013), ‘Nothing to Celebrate? The Lack or Disparagement of Victory Celebrations in the Greek Historians’, in A. Spalinger and J. Armstrong (eds), Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World, 57–74, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Havener, W. (2014), ‘A Ritual Against the Rule? The Representation of Civil War Victory in the Late Republican Triumph’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 165–79, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Havener, W. (2015), ‘Triumphus ex bello civili? Die Präsentation des Bürgerkriegssieges im spätrepublikanischen Triumphritual’, in H. Börm, M. Mattheis and J. Wienand (eds), Civil War in Ancient Greece and Rome. Contexts of Disintegration and Reintegration, 149–84, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Hawthorn, G. (2014), Thucydides on Politics. Back to Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedrick Jr., C.W. (2000), History and Silence. Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity, Austin: University of Texas Press. Hekster, O.J. (2007), ‘Fighting for Rome: The Emperor as a Military Leader’, in L. de Blois and E. Lo Cascio (eds), The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC–AD 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects, 91–105, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Hekster, O.J. and Rich, J. (2006), ‘Octavian and the Thunderbolt: The Temple of Apollo Palatinus and Roman Traditions of Temple Building’, Classical Quarterly 56 (1): 149–68. Hellegouarc΄h, J. (1963), Le Vocabulaire Latin des Relations et des Partis Politiques sous la République, Paris: Les Belles Lettres Lille. Henderson, J. (1998), Fighting for Rome: Poets and Caesars, History and Civil War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinard, F. (1985), Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine, Rome: Ecole Française de Rome. Hodkinson, S. (2009), Sparta: Comparative Approaches, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Hoff, R. Von den, Stroh, W. and Zimmermann, M. (2014), Divus Augustus. Der erste römische Kaiser und seine Welt, München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Hohlfelder, R.L. (ed.) (2008), The Maritime World of Ancient Rome, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2003), ‘Ikonen der virtus: exemplarische Helden (-taten) im monumentalen Gedächtnis der römischen Republik’, in A. Barzanò, C. Bearzot and

308

Bibliography

F. Landucci Gattinoni (eds), Modelli eroici dall’antichità alla cultura europea. Alle radici della casa comune europea. Atti del Convegno, 213–37, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2004), Senatvs Popvlvsqve Romanvs. Die politische Kultur der Republik – Dimensionen und Deutungen, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2009), Eine politische Kultur (in) der Krise?, München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2010), Reconstructing the Roman Republic. An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research, Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2011), Von der militia equestris zur militia urbana. Prominenzrollen und Karrierefelder im antiken Rom, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Holliday, P.J. (2002), The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holloway, R.R. (2004), Constantine and Rome, New Haven: Yale University Press. Hölscher, T. (1967), Victoria Romana. Archäologische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Wesensart der römischen Siegesgöttin von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 3. Jhs. n. Chr., Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Phillip von Zabern. Hölscher, T. (1994), ‘Claudische Staatsdenkmäler in Rom und Italien. Neue Schritte zur Festigung des Principats’, in V.M. Strocka (ed.), Die Regierungszeit des Kaisers Claudius (41–54 n. Chr). Umbruch oder Episode?, 91–105, Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Phillip von Zabern. Hölscher, T. (2003), ‘Images of War in Greece and Rome: Between Military Practice, Public Memory, and Cultural Symbolism’, Journal of Roman Studies 93: 1–17. Hölscher, T. (2004), The Language of Images in Roman Art, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hölscher, T. (2006), ‘The Transformation of Victory into Power: From Event to Structure’, in S. Dillon and K.E. Welch (eds), Representations of War in Ancient Rome, 27–48, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hölscher, T. (2009), ‘Monuments of the Battle of Actium: Propaganda and Response’, in J. Edmondson (ed.), Augustus, 310–33, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (= 1985, ‘Denkmäler der Schlacht von Actium – Propaganda und Resonanz’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 67: 81–102). Hope, V.M. (2003), ‘Trophies and Tombstones: Commemorating the Roman Soldier’, World Archaeology 35 (1): 79–97. Hornig, K. (2001), ‘Tierfiguren an Bordwänden antiker Schiffe’, Skyllis. Zeitschrift für Unterwasserarchäologie 4 (2): 112–24. Hose, M. (1994), Erneuerung Der Vergangenheit: Die Historiker im Imperium Romanum von Florus bis Cassius Dio, Stuttgart: De Gruyter. Howard, M. (1962, Feb.), ‘The Use and Abuse of Military History (lecture)’, Royal United Service Institution, Journal 107: 4–8. Howard, M. (1984), The Causes of War, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

309

Hoyos, D. (2011), A Companion to the Punic Wars, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Hülsen, C. (1893), ‘Albanus Mons’, in G. Wissowa (ed.), Realenzyklopedie der Altertumswissenschaft 1: 1310–11. Humphrey, J.W. and Reinhold, M. (1984), ‘Res Gestae 4.1 and the Ovations of Augustus’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 57: 60–62. Itgenshorst, T. (2004), ‘Augustus und der republikanische Triumph: Triumphalfasten und summi viri-Galerie als Instrumente der imperialen Machtsicherung’, Hermes 132 (4): 436–58. Itgenshorst, T. (2005), Tota illa pompa. Der Triumph in der römischen Republik, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Itgenshorst, T. (2008), ‘Der Princeps triumphiert nicht. Vom Verschwinden des Siegesrituals in augusteischer Zeit’, in H. Krasser, D. Pausch and I. Petrovic (eds), Triplici invectus triumpho. Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit, 27–51, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. James, E. (2008), ‘The Rise and Function of the Concept “Late Antiquity” ’, Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (1): 20–30. Jehne, M. (1987), Der Staat des Dictators Caesar, Böhlau: Böhlau-Verlag. Kagan, K. (2006), The Eye of Command, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Kähler, H. (1939), ‘Triumphbogen (Ehrenbogen)’, in G. Wissowa (ed.), Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft: 373–493. Kalyvas, S.N. (2005), ‘Warfare in Civil Wars’, in I. Duyvesteyn and J. Angstrom (eds), Rethinking the Nature of War, 88–108, London & New York: Routledge. Kalyvas, S.N. (2006), The Logic of Violence in Civil War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalyvas, S.N. (2007), ‘Civil Wars’, in C. Boix and S.C. Stokes (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, 416–34, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katagiri, N. (2015), Adapting to Win. How Insurgents Fight and Defeat Foreign States in War, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kearsley, R. (2009), ‘Octavian and Augury: The Years 30–27 B.C.’, Classical Quarterly 59 (1): 147–66. Kearsley, R. (2013), ‘Triumviral Politics, the Oath of 32 BC and the Veterans’, Classical Quarterly 63 (2): 828–34. Keaveney, A. (2005), Sulla: The Last Republican, 2nd edn, London & New York: Routledge. Keaveney, A. (2007), The Army in the Roman Revolution, Oxford & New York: Routledge. Keegan, J. (1991), The Face of Battle. A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme, 1st edn 1976, London: Pimlico. Kehne, P. (1998), ‘Augustus und “seine” spolia opima: Hoffnungen auf den Triumph des Nero Claudius Drusus?’, in T. Hantos and G.A. Lehmann (eds), Althistorisches Kolloquium aus Anlass des 70. Geburtstag von Jochen Bleicken, 187–211, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

310

Bibliography

Kellum, B. (2010), ‘Representations and Re-­presentations of the battle of Actium’, in B.W. Breed, C. Damon and A. Rossi (eds), Citizens of Discord. Rome and Its Civil Wars, 187–205, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Kelly, G. (2008), Ammianus Marcellinus. The Allusive Historian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kilcullen, D. (2009), The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One, London: C. Hurst & Co Publishers. Kleiner, D.E.E. and Buxton, B. (2008), ‘The Ara Pacis and the Donations of Rome’, American Journal of Archaeology 112: 57–89. Kleiner, F.S. (1989), ‘A Study of Roman Triumphal and Honorary Arches 50 years after Kähler’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 2: 195–206. Kneissl, P. (1969), Die Siegestitulatur der römischen Kaiser, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Kneppe, A. (1994), Metus temporum. Zur Bedeutung von Angst in Politik und Gesellschaft der römischen Kaiserzeit des 1. und 2. Jhdts. n. Chr., Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Koeppel, G. (1999), ‘A Historical Relief from Rome and Considerations on tensae and the pulvinar (Review of Teile eines historischen Frieses in der Casa de pilatos in Sevilla. Mit einem Exkurs zur Tensa by Sabine G. Szidat)’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 12: 596–9. Kolenda, C.D. (2012), The Counterinsurgency Challenge. A Parable of Leadership and Decision Making in Modern Conflict, Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books. Kondratieff, E. (2004), ‘The Column and Coinage of C. Duilius: Innovations in Iconography in Large and Small Media in the Middle Republic’, Scripta Classica Israelica 23: 1–39. Kontokosta, A.H. (2013), ‘Reconsidering the Arches (fornices) of the Roman Republic’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 26: 7–35. Koon, S. (2010), Infantry Combat in Livy’s Battle Narratives, Oxford: Archaeopress. Koortbojian, M. (2010), ‘Crossing the pomerium. The Armed Ruler at Rome’, in B.C. Ewald and C.F. Noreña (eds), The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, 247–74, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koortbojian, M. (2013), The Divinization of Caesar and Augustus. Precedents, Consequences, Implications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kraft, K. (1967), ‘Der Sinn des Mausoleums des Augustus’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 16: 189–206. Krasser, H., Pausch, D. and Petrovic, I. (eds) (2008), Triplici invectus triumpho. Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Kristensen, T.M. (2015), ‘Maxentius’ Head and the Rituals of Civil War’, in H. Börm, M. Mattheis and J. Wienand (eds), Civil War in Ancient Greece and Rome. Contexts of Disintegration and Reintegration, 321–46, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Künzl, E. (1988), Der römische Triumph. Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom, München: Verlag C.H. Beck.

Bibliography

311

Kuttner, A.L. (1995), Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus. The Case of the Boscoreale Cups, Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford: University of California Press. La Rocca, E. (2013), AVGVSTO, Milan: Mondadori Electa. La Rocca, E. and Tortorella, S. (eds) (2008), Trionfi romani, Milan: Mondadori Electa. Lacey, J. (2014), ‘The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire’, in W. Murray and R.H. Sinnreich (eds), Successful Strategies. Triumphing in War and Peace from Antiquity to the Present, 38–64, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lacey, W.K. (1996), Augustus and the Principate. The Evolution of the System, Leeds: Francis Cairns Publications. Ladewig, M. (2014), Rom – Die antike Seerepublik. Untersuchungen zur Thalassokratie der res publica populi romani von den Anfängen bis zur Begründung des Principat, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Lange, C.H. (2008), ‘Civil War in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Conquering the World and Fighting a War at Home’, in E. Bragg, L. I. Hau and E. Macaulay-Lewis (eds), Beyond the Battlefields: New Perspectives on Warfare and Society in the Graeco-Roman World, 185–204, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lange, C.H. (2009), Res Publica Constituta: Actium, Apollo and the Accomplishment of the Triumviral Assignment, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Lange, C.H. (2011), ‘The Battle of Actium: A Reconsideration’, Classical Quarterly 61 (2): 608–23. Lange, C.H. (2012), ‘Constantine’s Civil War Triumph of AD 312 and the Adaptability of Triumphal Tradition’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 37: 29–53. Lange, C.H. (2013), ‘Triumph and Civil War in the Late Republic’, Papers of the British School at Rome 81: 67–90. Lange, C.H. (2014a), ‘Review of Karl Galinsky, Augustus. Introduction to the Life of an Emperor’, Classical Review 64 (1): 227–9. Lange, C.H. (2014b), ‘The Triumph Outside the City: Voices of Protest in the Middle Republic’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 67–81, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Lange, C.H. (2015), ‘Augustus’ Triumphal and Triumph–like Returns’, in I. Östenberg, S. Malmberg and J. Bjørnebye (eds), The Moving City. Processions, Passages and Promenades in Ancient Rome, 133–43, 282–7, London: Bloomsbury Academic. Lange, C.H. (forthcoming 2016), ‘The Late Republican Triumph. Continuity and Change’, in F. Goldbeck and J. Wienand (eds), Der römische Triumph in Prinzipat und Spätantike, Berlin: De Gruyter. Lange, C.H. and Rich, J.W. (forthcoming), Naval Triumphs. Lange, C.H. and Vervaet, F.J. (eds) (2014), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Laurence, R. (1999), The Roads of Roman Italy: Mobility and Cultural Change, London: Routledge. Lazenby, J.F. (1998), Hannibal’s War. A Military History of the Second Punic War, 2nd edn, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

312

Bibliography

Lee, A.D. (2000), Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity: A Sourcebook, London: Routledge. Lehmann, G.A. (2004), ‘Der Beginn der res gestae des Augustus und das politische exemplum des Cn. Pompeius’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 148: 151–62. Lehnen, J. (1997), Adventus Principis. Untersuchungen zu Sinngehalt und Zeremoniell der Kaiserankunft in den Städten des Imperium Romanum, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lendon, J.E. (2009), ‘Historians Without History: Against Roman Historiography’, in A. Feldherr (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to The Roman Historians, 41–61, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lenski, A.D. (2008), ‘Evoking the Pagan Past: Instinctu divinitatis and Constantine’s Capture of Rome’, Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (2): 204–57. Levene, D.S. (2010), Livy and the Hannibalic War, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levick, B.M. (1982), ‘Sulla’s March on Rome in 88 BC’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 31: 503–98. Levick, B. (2010), Augustus. Image and Substance, Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education. Levy, J.S. and Thompson, W.R. (2010), Causes of War, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Lichtenberger, A. (2011), Severus Pius Augustus. Studien zur sakralen Repräsentation und Rezeption der Herrschaft des Septimius Severus und seiner Familie (193–211 n. Chr.), Leiden: Brill. Liegle, J. (1991), ‘Die Münzprägung Octavians nach dem Siege von Actium und die augusteische Kunst’, in G. Binder (ed.), Saeculum Augustum III, Kunst und Bildersprache, 308–34, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (= 1941, ‘Die Münzprägung Octavians nach dem Siege von Actium und die augusteische Kunst’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 56: 91–119. Ligt, L. de (2007), ‘Roman Manpower and Recruitment during the Middle Republic’, in P. Erdkamp (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army, 114–31, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Linderski, J. (1984), ‘Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: The Genera Militiae and the Status of Octavian’, Journal of Roman Studies 74: 74–80. Lintott, A. (1996), ‘Political History, 146–95 BC’, in J.A. Crook, A. Lintott and E. Rawson (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History 92: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 BC, 40–103, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lintott, A. (1999a), The Constitution of the Roman Republic, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lintott, A. (1999b), Violence in Republican Rome, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lintott, A. (2008), Cicero as Evidence. A Historian’s Companion, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liverani, P. (2004), ‘Reimpiego senza ideologia. La lettura antica degli spolia dall’arco di Costantino all’età carolinga’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 111: 383–434.

Bibliography

313

Lloyd, M. (2013), ‘The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum: A Reconsideration’, American Journal of Ancient History 6–8: 541–71. L’Orange, H.P. and Gerkan, A. von (1939), Der Spätantike Bildsmuck des Konstantinsbogens, Berlin: De Gruyter. Lovén, B. and Schaldemose, M. (2012), The Ancient Harbours of the Piraeus: The Zea Shipsheds and Slipways, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Lugli, G. (1923), ‘La via trionfale a Monte Cavo e il gruppo stradale dei Colli Albani’, Atti Pontifici Accademia Romana Archeologia. Memorie 1 (1): 251–72. Luke, T. (2012), ‘Julius Caesar as Rex? The ovatio of January 44 BC’, in F. Cairns (ed.), Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar, Volume 15, 267–83, Prenton: Francis Cairns Publications. Luke, T. (2014), Ushering in a New Republic. Theologies of Arrival at Rome in the First Century BCE, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Lundgreen, C. (2011), Regelkonflikte in der römischen Republik. Geltung und Gewichtung von Normen in politischen Entscheidungsprozessen, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Lundgreen, C. (2014), ‘Rules for Obtaining a Triumph – the ius triumphandi once more’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 17–32, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Lusnia, S. (2006), ‘Battle Imagery and Politics on the Severan Arch in the Roman Forum’, in S. Dillon and K.E. Welch (eds), Representations of War in Ancient Rome, 272–99, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luttwak, E.N. (1976), The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. From the First Century A.D. to the Third, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. MacCormack, S. (1981), Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley: University of California Press. Madigan, B. (2013), The Ceremonial Sculptures of the Roman Gods, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Madsen, J.M. (2009), ‘Mithradates VI: Rome’s Perfect Enemy’, Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 6: 223–36. Madsen, J.M. (2014), ‘The Loser’s Prize: Roman Triumphs and Political Strategies during the Mithridatic Wars’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 117–30, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Manuwald, G. (2007), Cicero Philippics 3–9, 2 vols, Berlin: De Gruyter. Manuwald, G. (2011), ‘The Function of Praise and Blame in Cicero’s Philippics’, in C. Smith and R. Covino (eds), Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric, 199–214, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Marcone, A. (2008), ‘A Long Late Antiquity?: Considerations on a Controversial Periodization’, Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (1): 4–19. Marlowe, E. (2010), ‘Liberator Urbis suae. Constantine and the Ghost of Maxentius’, in B.C. Ewald and C.F. Noreña (eds), The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, 199–219, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

314

Bibliography

Martel, W.C. (2007), Victory in War. Foundations of Modern Military Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, M. (2014), An Intimate War. An Oral History of the Helmand Conflict, 1978–2012, London: C. Hurst & Co Publishers. Mastrocinque, A. (1999), Studi sulle guerre Mithridatiche, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Maxfield, V.A. (1981), The Military Decorations of the Roman Army, London: Batsford. Mayer, E. (2006), ‘Civil War and Public Dissent: The State Monuments of the Decentralised Roman Empire’, in W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge and C. Machado (eds), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, 141–55, Leiden: Brill. Mayer, E. (2010), ‘Propaganda, Staged Applause, or Local Politics? Public Monuments from Augustus to Septimius Severus’, in B.C. Ewald and C.F. Noreña (eds), The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, 111–14, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazarr, M.J. (2014), ‘The Rise and Fall of the Failed-State Paradigm’, Foreign Affairs January/February Issue. Available Online at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/140347/michael-­j-mazarr/the-­rise-and-­fall-of-­the-failed-­state-paradigm [accessed 28 January 2016]. McClister, D. (2012), ‘Arches, Honorific and Triumphal’, in R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner (eds), The Encyclopaedia of Ancient History, 631–3, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. McCormick, M. (1986), Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonnell, M. (2006a), ‘Roman Aesthetics and the Spoils of Syracuse’, in S. Dillon and K.E. Welch (eds), Representations of War in Ancient Rome, 68–90, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonnell, M. (2006b), Roman Manliness. Virtus and the Roman Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonnell, M. (2011), ‘Virtus as a Specialization in the Middle Republic’, in W. Blösel and K.-J. Hölkeskamp (eds), Von der militia equestris zur militia urbana. Prominenzrollen und Karrierefelder im antiken Rom, 29–41, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Meier, C. (1997), Res publica amissa. Eine Studie zu Verfassung und Geschichte der späten römischen Republik, 3rd edn, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Meier, C. (2010), Das Gebot zu vergessen und die Unabweisbarkeit des Erinnerns. Vom öffentlichen Umgang mit schlimmer Vergangenheit, München: Siedler Verlag. Meister, J.B. (2013), ‘Adventus und Profectio. Aristokratisches Prestige, Bindungswesen und Raumkonzepte im republikanischen und frühkaiserzeitlichen Rom’, Museum Helveticum 70: 33–56. Miles, M.M. (2008), Art as Plunder. The Ancient Origins of Debate about Cultural Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millar, F.G.B. (1977), The Emperor in the Roman World, London: Gerald Duchworth & Co.

Bibliography

315

Millar, F.G.B. (1984), ‘The Mediterranean and the Roman Revolution: Politics, War and the Economy’, Past and Present 102: 3–24. Millar, F.G.B. (2000), ‘The First Revolution: Imperator Caesar, 36–28 BC’, in A. Giovannini (ed.), La Révolution Romaine Après Ronald Syme: Bilans et Perspectives : Sept Exposés Suivis de Discussions, Vandœuvres-Genève, 6–10 Septembre 1999, 1–38, Genève: Fondation Hardt. Momigliano, A. (1940), ‘Review of Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution’, Journal of Roman Studies 30: 75–80. Momigliano, A. (1942), ‘Terra Marique’, Journal of Roman Studies 31: 53–64. Momigliano, A. (1990), The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Berkeley: University of California Press. Mommsen, T. (1887–1888), Römisches Staatsrecht, Vol. 1–2, 3rd edn, Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel. Morillo, S. (2013), What is Military History?, Cambridge: Polity Press. Morrison, J.S. (1996), Greek and Roman Oared Warships 399–30 B.C., Oxford: Oxbow Books. Morstein-Marx, R. (2004), Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morstein-Marx, R. (2007), ‘Caesar’s Alleged Fear of Prosecution and his Ratio Absentis in the Approach to the Civil War’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 56: 159–78. Morstein-Marx, R. (2009), ‘Dignitas and res publica. Caesar’s and Republican Legitimacy’, in K.J. Hölkeskamp (ed.), Eine politische Kultur (in) der Krise?, 115–40, München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. Morstein-Marx, R. (2011), ‘Consular Appeals to the Army in 88 and 87: The locus of Legitimacy in Late-Republican Rome’, in H. Beck, A. Duplá, M. Jehne and F. Pina Polo (eds), Consuls and Res Publica. Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, 259–78, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morstein-Marx, R. and Rosenstein, N. (2010), ‘The Transformation of the Republic’, in N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx (eds), A Companion to the Roman Republic, 625–37, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Morton, P. (2014), ‘The Geography of Rebellion: Strategy and Supply in the Two “Sicilian Slave Wars” ’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 57 (1): 20–38. Mouritsen, H. (1998), Italian Unification: A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography, London: University of London Institute of Classical Studies. Münzer, F. (1899), ‘Claudius’, in G. Wissowa (ed.), Realenzyklopedie der Altertumswissenschaft 3 (2): 2738–55. Murray, W.M. (2012), The Age of the Titans. The Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Murray, W. and Mansoor, P.R. (2012), Hybrid Warfare. Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, W.M. and Petsas, P.M. (1989), Octavian’s Campsite Memorial for the Actian War, Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.

316

Bibliography

Murray, W. and Sinnreich, R.H. (2006), The Past as Prologue. The Importance of History to the Military Profession, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nedergaard, E. (1988), ‘Zur Problematik des Augustusbögen auf dem Forum Romanum’, in M. Hofter (ed.), Kaiser Augustus und die Verlorene Republik, 224–39, Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Phillip von Zabern. Nedergaard, E. (2001), ‘Facts and Fiction about the Fasti Capitolini’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 27: 107–27. Nelis, D.P. (2013), ‘Past, Present, and Future in Virgil’s Georgics’, in J. Farrell and D.P. Nelis (eds), Augustan Poetry and the Roman Republic, 244–62, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newman, E. (2014), Understanding Civil Wars. Continuity and Change in Intrastate Conflict, London & New York: Routledge. Nicolet, C. (1991), Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Niebuhr, B.G. (1830), Römische Geschichte 2, Berlin: Verlag G. Reimer. Nippel, W. (1995), Public Order in Ancient Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nixon, C.E.V. and Rodgers, B.S. (1994), In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici Latini, Berkeley: University of California Press. Noreña, C.F. (2011), Imperial Ideals in the Roman West. Representation, Circulation, Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. North, D.C., Wallis, J.J. and Weingast, B.R. (2013) (eds), Violence and Social Order. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded History, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. North, J. (2010), ‘The End of the Republic? Review of Harriet Flower, Roman Republics’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 23: 469–72. Nyquist, M. (2013), Arbitrary Rule. Slavery, Tyranny, and the Power of Life and Death, Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Oakley, S.P. (1997–2005), A Commentary on Livy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ober, J. (2003), ‘Tyrant Killing as Therapeutic Stasis: A Political Debate in Images and Texts’, in K. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece, 215–50, Austin: University of Texas Press. Orlin, E.M. (1997), Temples, Religion, and Politics in the Roman Republic, Boston & Leiden: Brill. Osgood, J. (2006), Caesar’s Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osgood, J. (2011), Claudius Caesar. Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osgood, J. (2014a), ‘Caesar and Spanish Triumph-Hunting’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 149–62, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Osgood, J. (2014b), Turia. A Roman Woman’s Civil War, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US.

Bibliography

317

Osgood, J. (2015), ‘Ending Civil War at Rome: Rhetoric and Reality (88 BCE–197 CE)’, American Historical Review 120 (5): 1683–95. Östenberg, I. (1999), ‘Demonstrating the Conquest of the World. The Procession of Peoples and Rivers on the Shield of Aeneas and the Triple Triumph of Octavian in 29 B.C. (Aen.8.722–8)’, Opuscula Romana. Annual of the Swedish Institute in Rome 24: 155–62. Östenberg, I. (2007), ‘Review of Itgenshorst 2005’, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.04.37. Östenberg, I. (2009a), ‘From Conquest to Pax Romana. The Signa Recepta and the End of the Triumphal Fasti in 19 BC’, in O. Hekster, S. Schmidt-Hofner and C. Witschel (eds), Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Heidelberg, July 5–7, 2007), 53–75, Leiden: Brill. Östenberg, I. (2009b), ‘Review of Helmut Krasser et al., Triplici invectus triumpho. Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit’, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2009.05.26. Östenberg, I. (2009c), Staging the World. Spoils, Captives, and Representations in the Roman Triumphal Procession, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Östenberg, I. (2009d), ‘Titulis oppida capta leget: The Role of the Written Placards in the Roman Triumphal Procession’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 121 (2): 463–72. Östenberg, I. (2010), ‘Circum metas fertur: An Alternative Reading of the Triumphal Route’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 53 (3): 304–20. Östenberg, I. (2013), ‘Veni, vidi, vici and Caesar’s triumph’, Classical Quarterly 63 (2): 792–806. Östenberg, I. (2014), ‘Triumph and Spectacle. Victory Celebrations in the Late Republican Civil Wars’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 181–93, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Palombi, D. (1993), ‘Columnae Rostratae Augusti’, in E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 1, 208, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Patterson, J.R. (2010), ‘The City of Rome Revisited: From Mid-Republic to Mid-Empire’, Journal of Roman Studies 100: 210–32. Peirce, P. (1989), ‘The Arch of Constantine: Propaganda and Ideology in Late Roman Art’, Art History 12 (4): 387–418. Pelling, C.B.R. (1988), Plutarch, Life of Antony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pelling, C.B.R. (1996), ‘The Triumviral Period’, in A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin and A. Lintott (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History 102: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69, 1–69, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pelling, C.B.R (2010), “ Learning from that Violent Schoolmaster”: Thucydidean Intertextuality and some Greek Views of Roman Civil War’, in B.W. Breed, C. Damon and A. Rossi (eds), Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars, 105–18, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Pelling, C.B.R. (2011), Plutarch Caesar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

318

Bibliography

Pensabene, P. and Panella, C. (1999), Arco di Costantino: tra archeologia e archeometria, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Petzold, K.-E. (1999), Geschichtsdenken und Geschichtsschreibung Kleine Schriften zur griechischen und römischen Geschichte, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Phang, S.E. (2011), ‘New Approaches to the Roman Army’, in L.L. Brice and J.T. Roberts (eds), Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World, 105–44, Claremont, California: Regina Books. Phillips, J.E. (1974), ‘Form and Language in Livy’s Triumph Notices’, Classical Philology 69 (4), 265–73. Picard, G. (1980), ‘Une mosaïque pompéienne à Constantine et l’installation des Sittii à Cirta’, Revue Archéologique, Nouvelle Série 1: 185–7. Pietilä-Castrén, L. (1987), Magnificentia publica. The Victory Monuments of the Roman Generals in the Era of the Punic Wars, Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Pina Polo, F. (2006), ‘The Tyrant Must Die: Preventive Tyrannicide in Roman Political Thought’, in F.M. Simón, F. Pina Polo and J.R. Rodríguez (eds), Repúblicas y ciudadanos: modelos de participation cívica en el mundo antiguo, 71–101, Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Pina Polo, F. (2010), ‘Frigidus Rumor: The Creation of a (Negative) Public Image in Rome’, in A.J. Turner, J.H. Kim On Chong-Gossard and F.J. Vervaet (eds), Private and Public Lies. The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco–Roman World, 75–90, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Pina Polo, F. (2011a), ‘Consuls as curators pacis deorum’, in H. Beck, A. Duplá, M. Jehne and F. Pina Polo (eds), Consuls and the Res Publica. Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, 97–115, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pina Polo, F. (2011b), The Consuls of Rome. The Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pittenger, M.R.P. (2008), Contested Triumphs. Politics, Pageantry, and Performance in Livy’s Republican Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. Pollini, J. (2012), From Republic to Empire. Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Potter, D. (2011), ‘Holding Court in Republican Rome (105–44)’, American Journal of Philology 132: 59–80. Potter, D. (2013), Constantine the Emperor, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Powell, A. and Welch, K. (2002), Sextus Pompeius, London: Classical Press of Wales. Prag, J.R.W. (2006), ‘Cave Navem’, Classical Quarterly 56 (2): 538–47. Prag, J.R.W. (2014), ‘Bronze Rostra from the Egadi Islands off NW Sicily: The Latin Inscriptions’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 27: 33–59. Price, J.J. (2001), Thucydides and Internal War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pritchard, D.M. (2010), War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

319

Prückner, H. (1980), ‘Das Budapester Aktium-Relief ’, in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Forschungen und Funde. Festschrift B. Neutsch, 357–65, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Prusac, M. (2012), ‘The Arch of Constantine: Continuity and Commemoration through Reuse’, Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 25: 127–57. Purcell, N. (1996), ‘The Ports of Rome: Evolution of a “façade maritime” ’, in A.G. Zevi and A. Claridge (eds), ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited. Archaeological and Historical Papers in Memory of Russell Meiggs, 267–79, London: British School at Rome. Raaflaub, K. (2010), ‘Creating a Grand Coalition of True Roman Citizens: On Caesar’s Political Strategy in the Civil War’, in B.W. Breed, C. Damon and A. Rossi (eds), Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars, 159–70, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Rantala, J. (2013), Maintaining Loyalty, Declaring Continuity, Legitimizing Power. Ludi saeculares of Septimius Severus as a Manifestation of the Golden Age, Tampere: Tampere University Press. Rees, R. (2012), Latin Panegyric, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rehak, P. (edited by J.G. Younger) (2006), Imperium and Cosmos. Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Reynolds, J.M. (1976), ‘Roman Inscriptions 1971–5’, Journal of Roman Studies 66: 174–99. Reynolds, J.M. (1982), Aphrodisias and Rome, London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Rich, J.W. (1976), Declaring War in the Roman Republic in the Period of Transmarine Expansion, Bruxelles: Collection Latomus. Rich, J.W. (1983), ‘The Supposed Roman Manpower Shortage of the Later Second Century BC’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 32 (3): 287–331. Rich, J.W. (1990), Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9), Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Rich, J.W. (1993), ‘Fear, Greed and Glory: The Causes of the Roman War-­making in the Middle Republic’, in J.W Rich and G. Shipley (eds), War and Society in the Roman World, 38–68, London & New York: Routledge. Rich, J.W. (1996), ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’, Chiron 26: 85–127. Rich, J.W. (1998), ‘Augustus’s Parthian Honours, the Temple of Mars Ultor and the Arch in the Forum Romanum’, Papers of the British School at Rome 66: 71–128. Rich, J.W. (1999), ‘Drusus and the spolia opima’, Classical Quarterly 49 (2): 544–55. Rich, J.W. (2003), ‘Augustus, War and Peace’, in L. De Blois, P. Erdkamp and O. Hekster (eds), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C.–A.D. 476), 329–57, Amsterdam: Brill (= 2009, ‘Augustus, War and Peace’, in J. Edmondson (ed.), Augustus, 137–64, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Rich, J.W. (2009), ‘Cantabrian Closure: Augustus’ Spanish War and the Ending of His Memoirs’, in C.J. Smith and A. Powell (eds), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus

320

Bibliography

and the Development of Roman Autobiography, 145–72, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Rich, J.W. (2010), ‘Deception, Lies and Economy with the Truth: Augustus and the Establishment of the Principate’, in A.J. Turner, J.H. Kim On Chong-Gossard and F.J. Vervaet (eds), Private and Public Lies. The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco–Roman World, 167–91, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Rich, J.W. (2011a), ‘Structuring Roman History: The Consular Year and the Roman Historical Tradition’, Histos 5: 1–43. Rich, J.W. (2011b), ‘The Fetiales and Roman International Relations’, in J.H. Richardson and F. Santangelo (eds), Priests and State in the Roman World, 187–242, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Rich, J.W. (2012a), ‘Making the Emergency Permanent: auctoritas, potestas and the Evolution of the Principate of Augustus’, in Y. Rivière (ed.), Des réformes augustéennes, 37–121, Rome: Ecole française de Rome. Rich, J.W. (2012b), ‘Review of Harriet Flower, Roman Republics’, Journal of Roman Studies 102: 306–7. Rich, J.W. (2012c), ‘Roman Attitudes to Defeat in Battle under the Republic’, in F.M. Simón, F. Pina Polo and J.R. Rodríguez (eds), Vae Victis! Perdedores en el mundo antiguo, 83–111, Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Rich, J.W. (2013), ‘Roman Rituals of War’, in B. Campbell and L.A. Tritle (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, 542–68, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Rich, J.W. (2014), ‘The Triumph in the Roman Republic: Frequency, Fluctuation and Policy’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 197–258, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Rich, J.W. and Shipley, G. (eds) (1993a), War and Society in the Greek World, London: Routledge. Rich, J.W. and Shipley, G. (eds) (1993b), War and Society in the Roman World, London: Routledge. Rich, J.W. and Williams, J.H.C. (1999), ‘Leges et Iura P.R. Restituit: A New Aureus of Octavian and the Settlement of 28–27 BC’, The Numismatic Chronicle 159: 169–213. Richardson, J.S. (1975), ‘The Triumph, the Praetors and the Senate in the Early Second Century BC’, Journal of Roman Studies 65: 50–63. Richardson, J.S. (1986), Hispaniae. Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218–82 BC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, J.S. (2008), The Language of Empire. Rome and the Idea of Empire from the Third Century BC to the Second Century AD, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, J.S. (2012), Augustan Rome 44 BC to AD 14, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ridley, R.T. (1983), ‘Falsi triumphi, plures consulatus’, Latomus: Revue D’Etudes Latines 42: 372–82.

Bibliography

321

Ridley, R.T. (2003), The Emperor’s Retrospect. Augustus’ Res Gestae in Epigraphy, Historiography and Commentary, Leuven: Peeters Publishers. Rinaldi Tufi, S. (1981), ‘Frammenti delle statue die summi viri nel foro di Augusto’, Dialoghi di Archeologia 3: 69–81. Robb, M.A. (2010), Beyond Populares and Optimates. Political Language in the Late Republic, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Rohde, G. (1942), ‘Ovatio’, in G. Wissowa (ed.), Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 18 (2), 1890–1903. Roller, M. (2009), ‘The Exemplary Past in Roman Historiography and Culture’, in A. Feldherr (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to The Roman Historians, 214–30, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roller, M. (2013), ‘On the Intersignification of Monuments in Augustan Rome’, American Journal of Philology 134 (1): 119–31. Rose, C.B. (2005), ‘The Parthians in Augustan Rome’, American Journal of Archaeology 109 (1): 21–75. Roselaar, S.T. (2010), Public Land in the Roman Republic. A Social and Economic History of Ager Publicus in Italy, 396–89 BC, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosenberger, V. (1992), Bella et expeditiones. Die antike Terminologie der Kriege Roms, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Rosenberger, V. (2009), ‘Verwehrte Ehre: Zur Wertigkeit des triumphus in monte Albano’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 91 (1): 29–39. Rosenstein, N.S. (1990), Imperatores Victi. Military Defeat and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic, Berkeley: University of California Press. Rosenstein, N.S. (2004), Rome at War. Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic, Chapel Hill & London: The University of North Carolina Press. Rosenstein, N.S. (2007), ‘Military Command, Political Power and the Republican Elite’, in P. Erdkamp (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army, 132–47, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Rosenstein, N.S. (2010), ‘Aristocratic values’, in N.S. Rosenstein and R. Kallet-Marx (eds), A Companion to the Roman Republic, 365–82, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Rowan, C. (2013), ‘Imaging the Golden Age; the Coinage of Antoninus Pius’, Papers of the British School at Rome 81: 211–46. Rüpke, J. (1990), Domi Militiae. Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Rüpke, J. (1995), Kalender und Öffentlichkeit. Die Geschichte der Repräsentation und religiösen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom, Berlin: De Gruyter. Rüpke, J. (2011), The Roman Calendar from Numa to Constantine: Time, History, and the Fasti, Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Rüpke, J. (2012), Religion in Republican Rome. Rationalization and Ritual Change, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Rutledge, S.H. (2012), Ancient Rome as a Museum. Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

322

Bibliography

Salomonsson, M-M. (2000/2001), ‘Roman Legates in the Republic’, Opuscula Romana 25–26: 79–88. Sampson, G. C. (2013), The Collapse of Rome. Marius, Sulla and the 1st Civil War (91–70 BC), Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. Santangelo, F. (2007), Sulla, the Elites and the Empire. A Study of Roman Politics in Italy and the Greek East, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Santangelo, F. (2008), ‘The Fetials and their ius’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 51: 63–93. Santangelo, F. (2013), Divination, Prediction and the End of the Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schäfer, T. (2002), ‘Römisches Relief mit Tensa’, Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des BeauxArts 96 : 31–49. Schäfer, T. (2008), ‘Ein frühkaiserzeitliches Relief mit pompa triumphalis’, in H. Krasser, D. Pausch and I. Petrovic (eds), Triplici invectus triumpho. Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit, 137–54, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (= 2007, ‘Ein frühkaiserzeitliches Relief mit Pompa triumphalis’, in K. Zachos (ed.), Nicopolis B. Proceedings of the Second International Nicopolis Symposium (11–15 September 2002), 2 vols, 471–81, Preveza: Actia Nicopolis Foundation). Schäfer, T. (2013), ‘Ciclo di rilievi Medinaceli’, in E. La Rocca (ed.), AVGVSTO, 321–3, Milan: Mondadori Electa (= the catalogue from the Augustus exhibition in Rome, catalogue nr. IX.5.1–11). Scheid, J. (2007), Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Hauts faits du divin Auguste, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Schipporeit, S. T. (2008), ‘Wege des Triumphes. Zum Verlauf der Triumphzüge im spätrepublikanischen und augusteischen Rom’, in H. Krasser, D. Pausch and I. Petrovic (eds), Triplici invectus triumpho. Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit, 95–136, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Schmitt, T. (2010), ‘Die Schließung des Ianus als Erfindung, Tradition und Symbol. Epik, Historiographie und Politische Wirklichkeit’, in B. Linke, M. Meier and M. Strothmann (eds), Zwischen Monarchie und Republik. Gesellschaftliche Stabilisierungsleistungen und Politische Transformationspotentiale in der antiken Stadtstaaten, 143–62, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Schmuhl, Y. (2008), Römische Siegesmonumente republikanischer Zeit. Untersuchungen zu Ursprüngen, Erscheinungsformen und Denkmalpolitik, Hamburg: Dr. Kovac Verlag. Scott, R.T. (2000), ‘The Triple Arch of Augustus and the Roman Triumph’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 13: 183–91. Seager, R. (1994), ‘Sulla’, in J.A. Crook, A. Lintott and E. Rawson (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History 92: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 B.C., 165–207, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sehlmeyer, M. (1999), Stadtrömische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Zeit: Historizität und Kontext von Symbolen nobilitären Standesbewusstseins, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Velag.

Bibliography

323

Shackleton Bailey, D.R. (1967), Cicero: Letters to Atticus, Volume 8, Books 14–16, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shackleton Bailey, D.R. (1968), Cicero: Letters to Atticus, Volume 3, Books 5–7.9, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, B. (1984), ‘Bandits in the Roman Empire’, Past & Present 105: 3–52. Sherk, R.K. (1988), The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simón, F.M. (2011), ‘The Feriae Latinae as Religious Legitimation of the Consuls’ imperium’, in H. Beck, A. Duplá, M. Jehne and F. Pina Polo (eds), Consuls and the Res Publica. Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, 116–32, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simpson, E. (2012), War from the Ground Up. Twenty-First-Century Combat as Politics, New York: Columbia University Press. Simpson, J. (1993), ‘The Original Site of the “Fasti Capitolini” ’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 42 (1): 61–81. Smith, C. (2011), ‘Thinking about Kings’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54: 21–42. Smith, C. (2012), ‘The Feriae Latinae’, in J. Rasmus Brandt and J.W. Eddeng (eds), Greek and Roman Festivals. Content, Meaning, and Practice, 267–88, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, C. (2015), ‘Review-Discussion: Performance, Communication, and Gods in Late Republican Rome’, Histos 9: XVI–XXVI. Smith, R.R.R. (1988), ‘Simulacra gentium: The ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias’, Journal of Roman Studies 78: 50–77. Sobocinski, M.G. (2009), ‘Porta Triumphalis and Fortuna Redux’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 54: 135–64. Spalinger, A. and Armstrong, J. (2013), Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Spannagel, M. (1999), Exemplaria Principis. Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Ausstattung des Augustusforums, Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte. Spannagel, M. (2003), ‘Die Tropaea des Marius und ihre Rolle in der inneren Auseinandersetzungen der späten römischen Republik’, in A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil and F.-H. Mutschler (eds), O tempora, o mores! Römische Werte und römische Literatur in den letzten Jahrzehnten der Republik, 323–54, München & Leipzig: De Gruyter. Spawforth, A.J.S. (2012), Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Starr, C.G. (1989), The Influence of Sea Power on Ancient History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, US. Steel, C. (2013), The End of the Roman Republic 146 to 44 BC: Conquest and Crisis, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Steinby, C. (2007), The Roman Republican Navy. From the Sixth Century to 167 BC, Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

324

Bibliography

Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. (2013), ‘Marius, Sulla und der Kampf um den öffentlichen Raum’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 95 (2): 429–46. Stephenson, P. (2009), Constantine. Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor, London: Quercus. Stiehl, R. (1957), Die Datierung der Kapitolinischen Fasten, Tübingen: De Gruyter. Stover, T. (2012), Epic & Empire in Vespasianic Rome. A New Reading of Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Strachan, H. (2013), The Direction of War. Contemporary Strategy in Historical Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, B. (2010), ‘Slave Wars of Greece and Rome’, in V.D. Hanson (ed.), Makers of Ancient Strategy, From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome, 185–205, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Strocka, V.M. (1964), ‘Neues zum Actiumrelief ’, Archäologischer Anzeiger 4: 823–34. Strocka, V.M. (2009), ‘Die Quadriga auf dem Augustusforum in Rom’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 115: 21–55. Strunk, T.E. (2014), ‘Rape and Revolution: Livia and Augustus in Tacitus’ Annales’, Latomus: Revue D’Etudes Latines 73 (1): 126–48. Sumi, G.S. (2002), ‘Spectacles and Sulla’s Public Image’, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 51: 414–32. Sumi, G.S. (2005), Ceremony and Power. Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Sumner, G.V. (1965), ‘A New Reading in the “Fasti Triumphales Capitolini” ’, Phoenix 19 (1): 22–6. Swan, P.M. (2004), The Augustan Succession. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 55–56 (9 B.C.–A.D. 14), Oxford: Oxford University Press, US. Syme, R. (1939/1952), The Roman Revolution, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Syme, R. (1984), ‘Problems about Janus’, in A.R. Birley (ed.), Ronald Syme Roman Papers 3, 1179–97, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Syme, R. (1989), ‘Janus and Parthia in Horace’, in J. Diggle, J.B. Hall and H.D. Jocelyn (eds), Studies in Latin Literature and its Tradition in Honour of C.O. Brink, 113–24, Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Symonds, C.L. (2011), The Battle of Midway, Oxford: Oxford University Press, US. Szidat, S.G. (1997), Teile eines historischen Frieses in der Casa de Pilatos in Sevilla. Mit einem Exkurs zur Tensa, München: Hieronymus Verlag. Tarpin, M. (2009), ‘Le triomphe d’Auguste: héritage de la République ou révolution?’, in F. Hurlet and B. Mineo (eds), Le Principat d’Auguste. Réalités et représentations du pouvoir Autour de la Res publica restituta, 129–42, Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Taylor, L.R. (1931), The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Middletown: American Philological Association. Taylor, L.R. (1946), ‘The Date of the Capitoline Fasti’, Classical Philology 41: 1–11.

Bibliography

325

Taylor, L.R. (1951), ‘New Indications of Augustan Editing in the Capitoline Fasti’, Classical Philology 46: 73–80. Thiel, J.H. (1954), A History of Roman Sea-Power before the Second Punic War, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Torelli, M. (1982), Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Trundle, M. (2013), ‘Commemorating Victory in Classical Greece: Why Greek Tropaia?’, in A. Spalinger and J. Armstrong (eds), Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World, 123–38, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Trunk, M. (2002), Die Casa de Pilatos’ in Sevilla. Studies zu Sammlung, Aufstellung und Rezeption antiker Skulpturen im Spanien des 16. Jhs., Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Trunk, M. (2009), ‘Studies zur Ikonographie des Pompeius Magnus – die Numismatischen und Glyptischen Quellen’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 123 (2008): 101–70. Trunk, M. (2010), ‘Batalla y triunfo: Los relieves históricos de la colección del primer Duque de Alcalá’, in J.M. Abascal and R. Cebrián (eds), Escultura romana en Hispania VI. Homenaje a Eva Koppel, 27–44, Murcia: Tabularium. Tucci, P.L. (2012), ‘La controversa storia delle “Porticus Aemilia” ’, Archeologia Classica 63: 575–91. Tuck, S.L. (2008), ‘The Expansion of Triumphal Imagery beyond Rome: Imperial Monuments at the Harbors of Ostia and Lepcis Magna’, in R.L. Hohlfelder (ed.), The Maritime World of Ancient Rome, 325–41, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Tusa, S. and Royal, J. (2012), ‘The Landscape of the Naval Battle at the Egadi Islands (241 B.C.)’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 25: 7–48. Ungern-Sternberg, J. von (1970), Untersuchungen zum spätrepublikanischen Notstandsrecht, München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Ungern-Sternberg, J. von (1998), ‘Die Legitimitätskrise der Römischen Republik’, Historische Zeitschrift 266: 607–24. Ungern-Sternberg, J. von (2004), ‘The Crisis of the Republic’, in H. Flower (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, 89–109, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Dam, R. (2011), Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vego, M. (2010), Operational Warfare at Sea. Theory and Practice, London: Routledge. Versnel, H.S. (1970), Triumphus. An Inquiry into the Origins, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph, Leiden: Brill. Vervaet, F.J. (2004), ‘The Lex Valeria and Sulla’s Empowerment as Dictator (82–79 BCE)’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 15: 37–84. Vervaet, F.J. (2008), ‘Review of Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph’, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2008.09.39.

326

Bibliography

Vervaet, F.J. (2009), ‘Pompeius’ Career from 79 to 70 BCE: Constitutional, Political and Historical Considerations’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 91: 406–34. Vervaet, F.J. (2010a), ‘Arrogating Despotic Power through Deceit: The Pompeian Model for Augustan Dissimulation’, in A.J. Turner, J.H. Kim On Chong-Gossard and F.J. Vervaet (eds), Private and Public Lies. The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco–Roman World, 133–66, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Vervaet, F.J. (2010b), ‘The Secret History: The Official Position of Imperator Caesar Divi Filius from 31 to 27 BCE’, Ancient Society 40: 79–152. Vervaet, F.J. (2011a), ‘On the Order of Appearance in Imperator Caesar’s Third Triumph (15 August 29 BCE)’, Latomus: Revue D’Etudes Latines 70: 96–102. Vervaet, F.J. (2011b), ‘Reducing Senatorial Control over Provincial Commanders: A Forgotten Gabinian Law of 67 BCE’, in O. Hekster and T. Kaizer (eds), Frontiers in the Roman World. Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire, 265–90, Leiden & Boston: Brill. Vervaet, F.J. (2012), ‘The Monopolisation of the Summum Imperium Auspiciumque from Cornelius Sulla Felix to Imperator Caesar (82 – 44 BCE)’, in Y. Rivière (ed.), Des réformes augustéennes, 123–47, Rome: Ecole française de Rome. Vervaet, F.J. (2014a), ‘Crassus’ Command in the War against Spartacus (73–71 BCE): His Official Position, Forces and Political Spoils’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 96 (2): 607–44. Vervaet, F.J. (2014b), “Si neque leges neque mores cogunt”: Beyond the Spectacle of Pompeius Magnus’ Public Triumphs’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 131–48, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Vervaet, F.J. (2014c), The High Command in the Roman Republic. The Principle of the summum imperium auspiciumque from 509 to 19 BCE, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Virgili, P. (2006), ‘Il Pantheon: scavo sulla fronte del tempio’, in M.A. Tomei (ed.), Roma. Memorie dal sottosuolo: ritrovamenti archeologici 1980/2006, 167–70, Milan: Electa. Virgili, P. and Battistelli, P. (1999), ‘Indagini in piazza della Rotonda e sulla fronte del Pantheon’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica Comunale di Roma 100: 137–55. Vitale, M. (2013), ‘Kleopatra auf einer Inschrift aus Ägypten und auf Münzprägungen syrischer Poleis: Das Schweigen der Erinnerungsmedien nach Actium?’, Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 95 (2): 455–70. Vittinghoff, F. (1936), Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit: Untersuchungen zur ‘damnatio memoriae’, Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt Verlag. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1990), ‘Roman Arches and Greek Honours: The Language of Power at Rome’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 36: 143–81. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1993), Augustan Rome, London: Bristol Classical Press. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2010), Rome’s Cultural Revolution, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Waller, M. (2011), ‘Victory, Defeat and Electoral Success at Rome, 343–91 BC’, Latomus: Revue D’Etudes Latines 70 (1): 18–38.

Bibliography

327

Walzer, M. (2002), ‘The Triumph of Just War (and Dangers of Success)’, Social Research 69 (4): 925–44. Walzer, M. (2006), Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th edn, New York: Basic Books. Wardle, D. (1998), Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Deeds and Sayings Book 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wardle, D. (2000), ‘Valerius Maximus on the Domus Augusta, Augustus, and Tiberius’, Classical Quarterly 502: 479–93. Wardle, D. (2012), ‘Suetonius on Augustus as God and Man’, Classical Quarterly 62: 307–26. Weigel, R.D. (1992), Lepidus. The Tarnished Triumvir, London & New York: Routledge. Weinstock, S. (1971), Divus Julius, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Welch, D. and Fox, J. (2012), Justifying War. Propaganda, Politics and the Modern Age, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Welch, K. (2012), Magnus Pius. Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Westall, R. (1996), ‘The Forum Iulium as Representation of Imperator Caesar’, Römische Mittelungen 103: 83–118. Westall, R. (2013), ‘The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: A Reconsideration’, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 38: 95–123. Westall, R. (2014), ‘Triumph and Closure: Between History and Literature’, in C.H. Lange and F.J. Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle, 33–52, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Westall, R. (forthcoming a), Caesarian Soundings. Westall, R. (forthcoming b), ‘The Paintings of Timomachus of Byzantium in the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum Iulium’. Wheeler, E.L. (1993), ‘Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy’, Journal of Military History 57: 7–41, 215–40. Wheeler, E.L. (2011), ‘Greece: Mad Hatters and March Hares’, in L.L. Brice and J.T. Roberts (eds), Recent Directions in the Military History of the Ancient World, 53–104, Claremont, California: Regina Books. Whitman, J.Q. (2012), The Verdict of Battle. The Law of Victory and the Making of Modern War, Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press. Wienand, J. (2012), Der Kaiser als Sieger. Metamorphosen triumphaler Herrschaft unter Constantin I, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Winterling, A. (2009), Politics and Society in Imperial Rome, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Wiseman, T.P. (2007), ‘Three Notes on the Triumphal Route’, in A. Leone, D. Palombi and S. Walker (eds), Res Bene Gestae. Ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore Eva Margareta Steinby, 445–9, Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Wiseman, T.P. (2008), ‘Review of M. Beard (2007) The Roman Triumph’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 21: 389–91.

328

Bibliography

Wiseman, T.P. (2009), Remembering the Roman People. Essays on Late-Republican Politics and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiseman, T.P. (2010), ‘The Two-Headed State: How Romans Explained Civil War’, in B.W. Breed, C. Damon and A. Rossi (eds), Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars, 25–44, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, US. Wiseman, T.P. (2013), ‘The Palatine, from Evander to Elagabalus’, Journal of Roman Studies 103: 234–68. Wissowa, G. (1912), Religion und Kultus der Römer, 2nd edn, München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Wissowa, G. (1931), ‘Supplicationes’, in G. Wissowa (ed.), Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1): 942–51. Woodman, A.J. (1983), Velleius Paterculus. The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41–93), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woolf, G. (2012), Rome. An Empire’s Story, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zachos, K. (2003), ‘The Tropaeum of the Sea-Battle of Actium at Nikopolis: Interim Report’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 16: 65–92. Zachos, K. (2007), Nicopolis B. Proceedings of the Second International Nicopolis Symposium (11–15 September 2002), 2 vols, Preveza: Actia Nicopolis Foundation. Zachos, K. (2009), ‘Le Sculture dell’Altare nel Monumento di Ottaviano Augusto a Nicopoli: un Primo Approccio’, in E. Carando and A.G. Benvenuti (eds), Tripodes 8: Patrasso colonia di Augusto e le trasformazioni culturali, politiche ed economiche della Provincia di Acaia agli inizi dell’età imperiale romana: atti del Convegno internazionale, Patrasso 23–24 marzo 2006, 269–306, Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. Zachos, K. and Pavlidis, E.A. (2010), ‘Nikopolis, Die Siegesstadt bei Actium. Die Forschungsergebnisse der letzten Jahre’, in H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszeck (eds), Neue Forschungen zu griechischen Städten und Heiligtümern: Festschrift für Burkhardt Wesenberg zum 65. Geburtstag, 139–60, Möhnesee: Bibliopolis. Zanker, P. (1987), Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Zanker, P. (2012), ‘Der Konstantinsbogen als Monument des Senates’, Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 25: 77–105. Ziolkowski, A. (1992), The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context, Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Ziolkowski, A. (2009), ‘What did Agrippa’s Pantheon look like? New Answers to an Old Question’, in G. Graßhoff, M. Heinzelmann and M. Wäfler (eds) (2009), The Pantheon in Rome, 29–39, Bern: Bern Studies.

Index Acilius Glabrio, M. (cos. 191) 29, 32, 41 Adventus 10, 38, 65, 99–100, 156–7, 165, 170, 251 n. 23, 271, n. 3 Aemilius Lepidus, M. (triumvir) 40, 66, 78, 83–6, 89, 96, 114, 152, 246 n. 94, 258 n. 114 Aemilius Paullus, L. (cos. 182, 168) 43, 45, 47, 57, 84, 163 Aeneas 92, 176, 180, 185 Alexander Helios 149, 152 Antonius, L. (cos. 41) 117, 137, 156–7 Antonius, M. (triumvir) 9, 35, 61–2, 83–4, 86–8, 91, 111–13, 117–18, 122–3, 125–32, 137–9, 144, 156, 180, 187, 191, 257 n. 107 Antonius and Cleopatra 7, 14, 120, 123, 125, 129–31, 133, 136–7, 140, 142, 149–53, 168, 189, 192–3, 195 Ovation, joint with Octavian 34, 37–8, 65, 68, 85, 89, 114, 132–3, 157–8, 167, 262 n. 153 Victory and triumph over Armenia 39–40, 79, 219 n. 98, 223 n. 47, 244 n. 59 Antonius, M. (cos. 99) 115–16, 259 n. 122, 259 n. 126 Aplustre 186–7, 192 Ara Fortunae Reducis 166, 169–70 Ara Maxima, Herculis Invicti 162 Ara Pacis Augustae 142, 167–70, 173, 176, 181, 185, 232 n. 22 Arch, Actian 51–2, 130–3, 138, 161–2, 195, 202 Arch, Actian-Parthian 52, 130, 195 Arch, at Ariminum 161 Arch, of Augustus 49 Arch, at Brundisium 161, 195 Arch, Capitoline 196 Arch, Constantine 126–7, 130, 142, 189, 201–5, 208 n. 14 Arch, Drusus 169

Arch, Milvian Bridge 161 Arch, Naulochus 130, 195 Arch, Septimius Severus 132, 195, 199–200, 202, 204 Arch, Titus 183, 193, 198–9, 208 n. 14 Arch, Trajan at Beneventum 195 Arcus Triumphalis 130, 195–6, 204 Augustus (Young Caesar/Octavian) passim Actium, victory and triumph 5, 9–10, 15, 34, 46–7, 51–2, 61, 85, 90, 93, 117, 120–6, 129–34, 136–53, 156–7, 159–62, 171–80, 183, 186–95, 249 n. 3 Alexandria, victory and triumph 9, 15, 17, 39, 79, 90, 120, 122, 124, 130–1, 134, 136, 138–40, 146, 148, 150–2, 159–60, 168, 188–9, 193 Divus Augustus 10, 173, 183, 191, 194 Funeral of 169–70, 172–3, 175, 178–81, 183, 185–7, 192 Mylae, victory and ovation 44–5, 47, 119, 133, 147, 158–9 Naulochus, victory and ovation 45–7, 118–20, 130, 133–4, 158–9, 172, 195, 263 n. 158, 283 n. 14. Ovation, joint with Antonius, see Antonius Parthian Settlement 8, 50–2, 130, 165, 178, 180, 185, 195, 231 n. 15. Refusal of triumph 10, 77, 94, 97, 155, 169–70, 200 Triumph-like returns 10, 51, 93, 114–15, 130, 155–7, 165–70 Battlefield 6–7, 22–4, 28–9, 57–8, 76, 82, 187, 234 n. 49, 234 n. 50 Beyond the 23–4, 29 Bellum Iustum 7, 37, 113, 121, 202 Brundisium 65, 77, 85, 114–15, 117, 132, 156–7, 161, 163, 195

330

Index

Brutus Albinus, Decimus Junius (Decimus Brutus) 35, 38, 79, 86–90, 92–3, 111, 113–14, 127–8, 257 n. 107, 271 n. 5 Campus Martius 122, 128, 157, 159, 161–4, 166, 168 Capitoline Hill 6–7, 16, 28, 33–5, 49, 55, 63–5, 75, 79–80, 91, 133, 155, 157–8, 162, 164–5, 167, 175, 183, 196, 290 n. 13 Casualties, of (civil) war 29, 34, 55, 57, 109, 128, 183, 234 n. 49, 234 n. 51, 262 n. 152 Cicereius, C. 59–61, 63, 65, 79 Circus Flaminius 6, 28, 155, 159, 162–3, 169 Circus Maximus 162, 196 Civil war passim American Civil War 129, 264 n.18 Definition of 1, 17, 23–7, 211 n. 23, 216 n. 70, 248 n. 2 Ending of 6, 10, 16, 19, 51, 69, 79, 91, 103, 119–23, 125, 131, 136–40, 147–8, 151–2, 156–7, 181, 187, 189–92, 229 n. 114, 272 n. 10 Factions 2, 22–4, 26, 87, 91, 96, 108, 111, 127, 129, 132, 201–2, 207 n. 2, 209 n. 3, 212 n. 27, 216 n. 75, 216 n. 80, 288 n. 94 Impact of 2–3, 14, 18–19, 25, 128, 207 n. 2 Pirates and slaves, war against 5, 14, 33, 36–8, 45–6, 48, 80, 99, 111–12, 115–21, 124, 141, 158, 189, 258 n. 119, 260–1 n. 142, 261 n. 143 Victoria civilis 85, 205 Violence 15–20, 22–4, 120, 211 n. 23, 217 n. 85 Warring groups 21–2, 24, 128 Claudius 177, 189, 191–2 Claudius Marcellus, M. (cos. 222, 215, 214, 210, 208) 32, 36–7, 41–3, 56, 64–8, 72, 97, 101, 148, 158, 162–3, 166–7, 184, 224, n. 56, 224 n. 58, 278 n. 87 Cleopatra 85, 122–3, 130–1, 136–7, 139, 144, 148–9, 151–2, 168, 188–9, 192–3, 263 n. 157, 263 n. 158, 267 n. 60 Antonius and Cleopatra, see Antonius. Cleopatra Selene 149, 152

Constantine 90, 98–101, 104, 126–7, 132, 142, 189, 197, 201–5, 208 n. 14, 214 n. 48, 292 n. 35, 293 n. 37 Milvian Bridge, Battle of 126, 203–4 Victory, over Maxentius 99–100, 127, 202–4 Cornelius Balbus minor, L. 8, 49–50, 59, 240 n. 7, 280 n. 107, Cornelius Scipio Africanus, P. (cos. 205) 4–6, 32, 35, 54, 60, 72, 84, 101, 105, 196 Cornelius Sulla Felix, L. (cos. 88) 4, 8, 16, 18–19, 61, 72, 82, 95, 98, 101, 105–6, 111, 180 Civil war, against Marius 13, 16, 18, 25, 79–80, 83, 91, 93, 96, 102–5, 119–20, 132, 211 n. 23, 252–3 n. 42 Sulla and Mithridates 80–2, 101–4, 123–4 ‘Crisis’ 2, 15–16, 18–20, 23–4, 27, 76, 81, 86–7, 212 n. 32, 213 n. 33 ‘Damnatio memoriae’ 61–2, 125, 128, 138, 202, 267 n. 60 Drusus (Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus) 38, 65, 67, 149, 151, 168–9, 179, 185, 191 Duilius, Cn. (cos. 260) 43–9, 80, 225–6 n. 75, 227 n. 96, 228 n. 104, 259 n. 122 Fabius Maximus, Q. (cos. suff. 45) 72, 110, 222 n. 44, 240–1 n. 13 Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, Q. (cos. 121) 57, 144–6, 196 Fasti Amiternini 9, 62, 119, 133–40, 148, 189, 262 n. 153 Fasti Antiates maiores 133 Fasti Fratrum Arvalium 59, 139 Fasti Barberiniani 39, 55, 67, 84–5, 114, 119, 131, 140, 151, 159 Fasti Capitolini 49, 59, 61–3, 133 Fasti Consulares 49, 59, 61–2, 133, 136 Fasti Cuprenses 134, 136, 138 Fasti municipales 9, 133, 138, 189 Fasti Praenestini 61, 138, 140, 160 Fasti Triumphales 8, 25, 33, 37, 39–44, 49–53, 55, 57–8, 60–3, 65–8, 77, 84–6, 88–9, 91–3, 102, 106, 110, 114, 116–17, 119–21, 129–30, 132–3, 140, 145, 147, 151–2, 157–8, 166, 195, 229–30 n. 2, 262 n. 153

Index Fasti Urbisalvienses 55, 61 Fasti Venusini 136, 138 Fasti Verulani 125 Feriae Latinae 61, 63–7, 69, 238 n. 92, 239 n. 106 Fetiales 85, 122, 129 Fornices Stertinii 196 Fornix Fabianus 145, 196 Forum Augustum 46, 50, 59, 61, 75, 77, 80, 91–2, 176–7, 179, 180–3, 185–6, 286 n. 72 Forum Boarium 47, 162, 196 Forum Romanum 5–6, 28, 33, 49, 63, 83, 104, 119, 130, 133, 140, 145, 161, 195, 196, 203, 208 n. 14 Gracchi (Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius) 13, 16, 20, 24, 96, 98 Hannibal 4–6, 42, 88, 92 Hirtius, A. (cos. 43) 14, 35, 87, 112, 128, 238 n. 92, 246 n. 109 Hostis 33, 35, 88–90, 103–5, 112–14, 121, 123, 128, 130, 132, 139, 267 n. 60 Imperator 3–4, 6, 22, 28, 31, 35–6, 68, 73, 80–1, 87–8, 96, 106, 112–13, 116, 131, 140, 143–4, 146, 148, 153, 156–7, 160, 164, 169, 243 n. 46, 246 n. 109 Iulius Caesar, C. (dict. 49–44) 8, 14, 17, 19, 24, 41, 61–2, 65, 72, 78–83, 89, 93, 97–8, 107–11, 122–4, 132, 145, 152, 158, 166–7, 180, 183, 185, 189, 192, 214 n. 53 Death of 1, 18, 83, 86, 103, 120, 128, 134, 178, 183, 189, 199–200, 288 n. 94 Divus Julius 143, 153,172, 186, 193 Munda, victory and triumph 9, 78, 85–6, 89, 101, 106, 110–11, 113, 124, 152, 192, 203 Pharsalus, battle of 34, 61, 78, 101, 109–10, 127, 255 n. 75 Juba, King of Numidia 66, 78, 106, 109–10, 124 Jugurtha, King of Numidia 74, 80, 90, 92 Julia, daughter of Augustus 149, 151

331

La Turbie 144 Legati 3, 31, 48, 50, 58, 72, 110, 168, 222 n. 44, 243 n. 46 Libertas 111, 132, 155, 199 Lutatius Catulus, Q. (cos. 102) 56, 58, 75–6, 224 n. 60 Manlius Vulso, Cn. (cos. 189) 31–2, 54, 58, 73, 162 Marius, C. (cos. 107, 104–100, 86) 2, 8, 19, 23, 27, 58, 71–84, 90–3, 96, 101, 180 Civil war, against Marius, see Sulla Markers, ideological and geographical 4, 10, 156, 161, 168, 170, 196 Mausoleum, of Augustus 168–9 Military history 21, 29, 42, 215 n. 66 ‘New Military History’ 29, 220 n. 107 Mithridates, wars and victory against 16, 29, 56, 80–82, 101–3, 117, 244 n. 68 Mutina, battle of 9, 35, 38, 79, 83, 86–90, 91–3, 102, 111–14, 124, 127–8, 134, 137, 139–40, 156, 189, 192, 203, 246 n. 108, 248 n. 1, 257 n. 107 Navalia 5, 163–4, 276 n. 60, 277 n. 65 Nero 51, 167, 177, 180, 182 Optimates and populares 15, 17, 212 n. 27 Pace parta terra marique 5, 82, 133, 146 Parta victoriis pax 50, 66, 181 Pedius, Q. (cos. suff. 43) 72, 110, 222 n. 44, 240–1 n. 13 Perusia, battle of 90, 114, 133–4, 137, 156–7 Philippi, battle of 90, 114–15, 132–4, 137–8, 156–8 Pomerium 6, 18, 28, 39, 41, 63–4, 68, 72, 74, 77, 79, 122, 155–9, 162–4, 166, 169–70, 195, 243 n. 49 Pompeius Magnus, Cn. (cos. 70, 55, 52) 8, 18, 24, 56, 61, 72, 77–82, 98, 105–7, 111, 117, 124, 128, 132, 144–5, 160, 179–80, 186 Pompeius Magnus Pius, Sex. (Sextus Pompeius) 5, 38–9, 66, 79, 83–6, 114–15, 117–21, 132–3, 137, 140–1, 156, 158, 180, 184, 186, 216–17 n. 80, 246 n. 102, 260 n. 136, 260–1 n. 142, 286 n. 78, 289 n. 100

332

Index

Populares and optimates, see Optimates and populares. Porta Capena 37, 66, 157, 162–3, 165–7 Porta Carmentalis 162 Porta Triumphalis 6, 10, 28, 66, 105, 155–7, 159, 162–3, 167, 169, 179, 236 n. 81 Realist International Relations Theory 21–2. Rome, as a ‘failed state’ 20, 23–4, 216 n. 77, 216 n. 78 Romulus 49, 68, 176, 179–80, 184–5, 229–30 n. 2 Rostra/rostra 45–6, 48, 61, 84, 116, 144, 147, 150–1, 161, 179–80, 183, 186–8, 191–3, 214 n. 53, 227 n. 91, 227 n. 93, 253 n. 52, 263 n. 2, 270 n. 98 Senate 2, 17–18, 74–5, 78, 81, 87–8, 91–2, 99, 105, 107–8, 127, 138–40, 161–2, 164, 166, 178, 180–1, 185, 195, 201–2 Senate and triumph 6–7, 28–9, 31–2, 35–7, 39–40, 57–60, 62–3, 65, 68–9, 72, 77, 80, 83, 92–3, 101, 113, 124, 163, 190 Senate, triumph and M. Aemilius Lepidus 78, 84, 114 Senate, triumph and Augustus 3, 5, 10, 61, 79, 122, 130–1, 139–40, 146–7, 155, 158–9, 179, 189, 195, 197 Senate, triumph and M. Claudius Marcellus 42, 167 Senate, triumph and A. Claudius Pulcher 34 Senate, triumph and Cn. Duilius 44 Senate, triumph and C. Iulius Caesar 61, 66, 78, 82, 89, 110, 122 Senate, triumph and Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus 87, 89, 114 Senate, triumph and Q. Lutatius Catulus 56, 76 Senate, triumph and Cn. Manlius Vulso 31, 58, 73 Senate, triumph and C. Marius 75, 77 Senate, triumph and Cn. Pompeius Magnus 77, 82, 107 Septimius Severus 132, 195, 197, 199–200 Sertorius, Q. 24, 106–7

Servilius Vatia Isauricus, P. (cos. 79) 5, 80, 116, 259 n. 124 Socii, war of the 14, 25, 37, 80, 209 n. 6, 252 n. 32 Spolia opima 42, 66, 78, 183, 185 Supplicatio 6, 28, 35, 41, 51, 59, 72, 78, 84, 86, 88–9, 96, 98, 103, 109–10, 113–14, 147, 246 n. 109 Temple of Apollo 162 Apollo, Nicopolis 142–3, 173 Bellona 41, 60, 122, 158, 162 Concord 200, 209 n. 5, 292 n. 28 Divus Augustus 10, 173, 194 Divus Julius 131, 193 Honos and Virtus 43, 166, 225 n. 70, 225 n. 73, 241 n. 18 Janus 5–6, 14, 47, 51, 99–100, 136, 146–7, 160–1, 165, 167–8, 170, 228 n. 104 Jupiter Feretrius 42, 169, 183, 185 Jupiter Latiaris, Alban Mount 63–4 Jupiter Optimus Maximus 3, 33, 39, 63–4, 75, 102, 165, 169, 175, 182–3, 185 Mars, Via Appia 169 Mars Ultor 50, 181–2, 286 n. 72 Mars Ultor, Capitoline 185 Mater Matuta 55 Pantheon 168 Victoria 169 Tensa 172, 175, 177–8, 181–2, 186, 193, 282 n. 11 Tiberius 50, 63, 67, 97, 149, 168–9, 174, 177, 179–80, 182 Titus 183, 197–9 Tullius Cicero, M. (cos. 63) 5, 14, 32, 35, 38, 46–7, 52–4, 56, 78, 80–1, 83–9, 97–8, 103, 111–14, 116, 118, 120–1, 127–8, 132, 155, 162, 166–7, 178, 210 n. 8, 244 n. 56, 257 n. 104, 288 n. 94 Triumph/triumphal passim (In) absentia 8, 71, 76–9, 84, 93, 110, 158, 243 n. 46 Conventions 2, 9, 29, 31–2, 35, 38, 73, 77–8, 83, 93–101, 110, 119, 124, 126, 128, 140, 151, 199, 203, 218 n. 94 Currus 106, 178, 180–1 Falsi triumphi 8, 49, 52–61, 229–30 n. 2

Index Laurelled letter 5–7, 28, 56, 58, 82, 119, 139–41, 146–7, 151–2 Laurel wreath 3, 31, 56–7, 73, 75, 80–1, 96, 111, 114, 157, 165, 167–9, 174–5, 182–3, 189, 192–3 Monopolization of the triumph 8, 20, 27, 71, 92 Procession 5–7, 18, 27–8, 46, 50, 57, 75, 82, 86, 89, 92, 95, 99–100, 102–3, 105, 110, 123–4, 160, 162, 182–3, 188, 196, 199, 200, 208 n. 14, 219 n. 98 Procession, Alban Mount 39–43, 45, 166 Procession, Naval triumph 43–8 Procession, ovation 33–9, 56 Procession, triumph-like 3–5, 30, 93, 146, 156–7, 163, 180, 182, 196 Quadriga 91, 105–7, 149–50, 170, 172, 174–84, 186, 193 Refusal of 10, 75, 77, 155, 169, 170, 200, 271 n. 5 Ritual 1–2, 6–7, 11, 22, 27–30, 50, 52, 81–2, 92–3, 95, 123, 158, 170, 175, 182–3, 186, 189, 218 n. 93, 219 n. 95, 219, n. 98, 224 n. 56 ‘Sense of an ending’ 6, 81, 123, 191, 224 n. 56 ‘Triumphal Rulership’ 1, 3, 26, 83, 105, 179–81, 198

333

Triumphator 7, 25, 29, 47, 55, 61, 68, 75, 99–100, 111, 117, 169, 174, 185, 193 Triumvirate 8, 13–15, 19–20, 65–6, 72, 81, 85–6, 90, 92, 94–5, 105, 108, 114, 117–22, 124, 131–4, 137–40, 147–8, 152–3, 156–7, 159, 164, 193, 257–8 n. 108, 272–3 n. 10, 277 n. 67 Triumviral assignment 15, 114, 119–20, 122, 131–2, 134, 137, 139–41, 147–8, 152–3, 156–8, 164, 193, 266 n. 34, 272 n. 10 Tyranny 99–100, 104, 111–12, 127, 132, 201–2, 209, 261 n. 143, 293 n. 41 Via Appia 162, 169 Via Flaminia 161, 168 Via Sacra 6, 28, 33, 63, 75, 196 Via Triumphalis 169 Vibius Pansa Caetronianus, C. (cos. 43) 35, 87, 112, 128, 238 n. 92, 246 n. 109 Victoria 1, 161, 169, 172, 174–5, 177, 179, 181, 183, 192 ‘Victory disease’ 30 Victory Monument, Nicopolis 5, 9, 126, 133, 138, 141–53, 173, 175–7, 186–7, 192–4, 272 n. 10 Vespasian 98, 198–9 Vipsanius Agrippa, M. (cos. 37) 46–8, 63, 147, 164, 168, 186, 227 n. 91, 228 n. 108, 240 n. 7, 249 n. 8